1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Collateral Contracts Rule Explained

Collateral Contracts Rule Explained

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.30.05

In Mann v. U.S. (Dec. 7, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims rejected a broad reading of the rule that lost profits are not allowed under contracts collateral to the contract actually breached, explaining that when the lost profits directly relate to the subject of the contract they are recoverable, even if they would have required a transaction with a third party. In this breach of a lease agreement, assuming adequate proof, the contractor is able to recover the lost profits he would have made from releasing the property, as well as certain out-of-pocket costs to improve the property.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...