No Double-Dipping: Board Lacks Jurisdiction Over New Theories Asserted in Government’s Amended Answer
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.16
In AeroVironment, Inc. (Mar. 30, 2016), following an apparent settlement of the government's cost disallowance claim, the ASBCA denied the government’s request to amend its answer (in order to “clarify” entitlement to additional quantum) because the proposed amendments constituted new “claims” that required new final decisions. Acknowledging that parties may ordinarily revise quantum without running afoul of jurisdictional concerns, in this case the Board found that the proposed amendments (which were premised on a new interpretation of FAR Parts 31 and 42, a different calculation methodology, and greatly increased the monetary stakes), involved different “operative facts” and “would alter the ‘essential nature’ and fundamental basis of the claim asserted in the final decisions,” over which the Board lacked jurisdiction.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.02.25
As we have reported previously, California has enacted a pair of climate-related reporting laws that apply to large entities doing business in California (SB 253 and SB 261, as modified by SB 219). This alert provides an update on only the most recent events; please see previous alerts for a broader overview of the laws’ requirements.
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.01.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
