1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Snooze You Lose: ASBCA Denies Appeal Seeking Payment for Employee Paid "To Do Nothing" During Stop Work

Snooze You Lose: ASBCA Denies Appeal Seeking Payment for Employee Paid "To Do Nothing" During Stop Work

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.01.19

In Advanced Global Resources, LLC, ASBCA No. 62070 (September 10, 2019), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals addressed whether a contractor may recover unmitigated direct labor costs incurred during a stop-work period. The costs at issue related to an employee hired to work on Advanced Global Resources, LLC’s (AGR) Army technology support services contract. The Army issued a stop-work order one week after award due to a protest. While the stop-work order did not direct AGR to be “on stand-by,” AGR paid the employee despite the fact that the employee did not perform any work on the contract. AGR submitted a request for equitable adjustment for the employee’s direct labor costs and unabsorbed overhead.  The contracting officer denied AGR’s Eichleay damages, and conditionally granted payment of the direct labor costs, if AGR did not appeal. AGR did appeal, and the Board denied the direct labor claim stating that AGR paid the new employee “to do nothing” and failed to minimize its costs. The Board denied AGR’s unabsorbed overhead claim because it did not satisfy the second prong of the Eichleay formula. This decision serves as a reminder to mitigate costs (when possible) during a stop-work period in order to minimize the risk of nonpayment.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights