No Double-Dipping: Board Lacks Jurisdiction Over New Theories Asserted in Government’s Amended Answer
Client Alert | less than 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 | 07.17.26
In the underlying litigation, Epic Games alleged that Apple violated antitrust and unfair competition laws by engaging in anti-steering behavior related to purchases on Apple’s in-app payment system. Apple received a percentage of payments made through this system, and Epic Games argued that Apple prohibited app developers from informing users about alternative payment options.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.15.26
CMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in Solicitations
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.15.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.14.26



