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.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 09.11.25
About one year ago, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled in its landmark Illumina/Grail judgment that the European Commission could not accept merger referrals from national competition authorities under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) unless those authorities had jurisdiction to review the transaction themselves (see our previous alert).
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.09.25
Client Alert | 12 min read | 09.09.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.08.25
California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continue to Roll Forward
