Using Available Funds For Other Purposes No Excuse For Breach
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.22.05
The Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt (Mar. 1, 2005) sustained breach actions by several Indian tribes against the Department of Interior, which had tried to avoid its contractual obligations by saying that it didn't have enough appropriated funds to meet all of its various responsibilities. In so doing, the Court reaffirmed the long-established rule for procurement contracts that, if Congress has not earmarked funds specifically for a program and "if the amount of an unrestricted appropriation is sufficient to fund the contract, the contractor is entitled to payment even if the agency has allocated the funds to another purpose or assumes other obligations that exhaust the funds," even if the contract has language such as "subject to the availability of funds."
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
