Termination Clause Trumps Cost-Sharing
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.23.06
The Federal Circuit in Jacobs Eng'g Group, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 19, 2006) had before it the interesting scenario of the government terminating a contract with an 80/20 cost share and the contractor insisting that it should get "all" its costs under the termination for convenience clause, not just 80% per the cost share. The court agreed, because the cost share had not been specifically incorporated in the termination clause and the termination had deprived the contractor of his compensating benefit for taking the cost share in the first place, patent rights in the finished work.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
