Jurisdiction Found Over 85-804 Indemnification Clause Breach Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.06
In an important case of first impression, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in The Boeing Co. (Apr. 12, 2006, http://www.crowell.com/pdf/expertise/govtcontracts/ASBCA_decision.pdf), has held that it has jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act to consider claims for the costs of investigation and remediation of ground water pollution and toxic tort litigation under indemnification clauses authorized pursuant to the “residual powers” authority of Public Law 85-804 and 10 U.S.C. § 2354. The Board concluded that Public Law 85-804, 10 U.S.C. § 2354, and statutory and contractual provisions allegedly providing for secretarial and/or congressional approval did not divest the Board of its CDA jurisdiction because, inter alia , acceptance of such arguments would render the indemnification clauses, which were included in prime contracts awarded to Boeing and subcontracts awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation in the 1960s and 1970s, “illusory.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.10.26
In Utech, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1586 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that in most cases, a pre-award protest must be filed before the proposal submission deadline to avoid the Blue & Gold waiver rule. This decision, while nonprecedential, is in line with U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) precedent, which has long held that pre-award protests must be filed before the proposal submission deadline.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 07.09.26
EU Steel Overcapacity Regulation: New Permanent Measure in Force from 1 July 2026
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.09.26
Made in the USA? Prove It: FTC Marks America's 250th with Crack Down on Domestic Origin Claims
