Federal Circuit Remands NAFI Contractor Back to ASBCA for Further Damages Findings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.04.14
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc., v. U.S. (May 29, 2014), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a $114 million award granted by the Court of Federal Claims to SUFI in its appeal of the ASBCA's damages determinations on several breach of contract claims brought in the aftermath of a telephone services contract with the Air Force's Non-Appropriated Fund Purchasing Office. The court found that the CFC correctly found error in several of the ASBCA's legal and factual findings concerning SUFI's damages, but it ruled that the CFC was not itself permitted to recalculate them under Wunderlich Act review and instructed the ASBCA to reconsider whether SUFI's calculations provided a fair and reasonable approximation of its losses (as the CFC had held) and recompute the lost profits owed.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
