Clear as Day: ASBCA Finds No Ambiguity in Contract
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.15.17
In Appeal of Family Entertainment Services, the Board denied a contractor’s claim that the government improperly reduced the amount that it paid under a military base maintenance contract. The contractor claimed, in part, that the parties’ contract was ambiguous as to the definition of the word “days” during the period of performance (PoP), and argued that the Board should read the term “days” to mean “work days” rather than “calendar days.” The Board rejected the contractor’s argument, noting that the contract incorporated FAR 52.212-4, which incorporates the FAR 2.101 definition defining “day” as “unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.” The Board cited long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that a differing opinion of contract terms alone does not give rise to an ambiguity, a reminder to contractors to carefully scrutinize the performance requirements in their contracts, including the PoP and any terms defined by the FAR.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.15.26
Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot: Practice Direction 51ZH
The Pilot codifies the position at common law, set out by Lady Hale in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38, which permits the public the right of access to documents placed before a court and referenced in a public hearing[4]. This Pilot will apply to cases heard in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court (King’s Bench Division), and the Financial List (Commercial Court and Chancery Division)[5].
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.14.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.13.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 01.13.26


