The Dockworkers’ Strike and Safeguarding Your Rights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.03.24
At midnight on October 1, 2024, the International Longshoremen’s Association launched a labor strike that effectively shut down all ports from Maine to Texas after being unable to reach agreement on terms for a new labor contract with the United States Maritime Alliance. This strike may impact virtually all industries that rely on maritime shipping, either directly or indirectly.
Government contractors should be cognizant of their rights since shipping delays resulting from the strike could affect their performance. If a contract incorporates FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, or one of the FAR Default clauses, such as FAR 52.249-8, Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service), then delays that are attributable to the dockworkers’ strike should be excusable, and contract performance times extended. However, if the delay is attributable to a subcontractor whose performance is impacted by the dockworkers’ strike, then a prime contractor may need to consider the possibility of procuring supplies from an alternative supplier. Contractors should use their best efforts to timely notify their respective contracting officers of any performance impacts and request additional time to perform, as well as document any directions they receive from the contracting officer.
The FAR’s Excusable Delay clause and the Default clauses do not address monetary relief for excusable delays. However, certain circumstances may change the calculus, such as where the government does not grant extensions when appropriate, or when certain warranties made by the government were breached as a result of the strike. Thus, it is important to provide notice to the government in the event of delays caused by the strike, and it is worthwhile in any notice of impact to the government to reserve the right to seek an equitable adjustment for cost and schedule impacts, as applicable.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
