1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.12.06

The AGBCA in Ardco, Inc. (Aug. 2, 2006), grounded the government's attempt to resort to the termination for convenience clause to avoid lost profit damages for breach when it wrecked the contractor's aircraft and caused it to lose revenue for part of the contract term. Nor did the government's argument fly that the lack of a contractual guarantee of any further revenue under an IDIQ contract defeats a lost profits claim, as the contractor is free to prove what work it likely would have received as the basis for its breach damages

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.26

CAS Board Publishes Final Rule Rescinding CAS 404, 408, 409, and 4117

As part of its ongoing effort to conform the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the CAS Board published a final rule rescinding CAS 408 (Accounting for costs of compensated personal absence) and CAS 411 (Accounting for acquisition costs of material).  The CAS Board also rescinded CAS 404 (Capitalization of tangible assets) and CAS 409 (Depreciation of tangible capital assets) but retained certain requirements of CAS 404 and 409, which will be located in new paragraphs of CAS 405 (Accounting for unallowable costs).  Specifically, the CAS Board retained the requirements currently located at CAS 404-50(d)(1), CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4), which the CAS Board explained are necessary to protect the Government’s interests.  Otherwise, the CAS Board determined that the requirements of CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411 overlapped with GAAP such that GAAP “may be applied reasonably as a substitute for CAS to support contract cost and pricing.”...

View All Insights