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 | 3 min read | 11.06.25
Executive Branch Focus on Federally Funded Inventions
In recent months the executive branch has indicated a willingness to assert control over intellectual property funded by federal research dollars in novel ways. This could potentially include leveraging its march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.06.25
Key Takeaways to the State Attorneys General - Election Day 2025
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.06.25
Supreme Court Oral Argument on Presidential Tariff Authority
Client Alert | 13 min read | 11.06.25
