Insights

As the United States government transitions from the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration, significant changes are already impacting infrastructure policy, with likely consequences to both planned and in-progress infrastructure projects around the country. Disruptions in funding and other policy changes are creating uncertainty for investors and stakeholders involved in infrastructure projects, particularly the potential impacts on projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as previewed in our January 18thclient alert, “Implications of Incoming Administration Changes to Infrastructure Initiatives.”

In a big change for defense contractors, Congress has amended 10 U.S.C. § 3372 to make clear that a Department of Defense (DoD) contracting officer’s unilateral definitization of an undefinitized contract action is directly appealable to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or the Court of Federal Claims. Congress’s change (made under Section 803 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025) (we report on the FY 2025 NDAA here) is contrary to recent ASBCA and Federal Circuit decisions.

On October 31, 2024, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) published its FY 2024 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the “adjudication of appeals, petitions for contracting officer final decisions, applications for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and other matters” of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA or Board) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2024, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies. This year, the civilian agencies with the highest number of docketed claims at the Board were the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies accounted for 126, or 76%, of the 165 Contract Disputes Act (CDA) appeals docketed at the Board. 

On December 17, 2024, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) announced its plan to launch a new Electronic Docketing System (EDS).  Once implemented, the Board will require use of the new EDS for most submissions. 

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. 

On September 24, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Memorandum M-24-18, Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (Memo).  The 36-page Memo builds on OMB’s March 2024 guidance governing federal agencies’ use of AI, Memorandum M-24-10, which we reported on here.  The Memo addresses requirements and guidance for agencies acquiring AI systems and services, focusing on three strategic goals: (i) ensuring collaboration across the federal government; (ii) managing AI risks and performance; and (iii) promoting a competitive AI market.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) recently issued notable reminders to contractors regarding its jurisdictional authority and the importance of timely filing claims.  The Board explained in DSME Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA 63878 (July 30, 2024), that it may retain jurisdiction over a dispute even when a different forum is listed in the contract.  In Platinum Services., Inc., ASBCA No. 63878 (Aug. 1, 2024), the Board instructed contractors to be mindful of the CDA’s statute of limitations period, even when seeking to amicably resolve a dispute.

In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. Servs. LLC, ASBCA, Nos. 62797, 62827 (May 7, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded approximately $4.9 million in delay-related breach damages to Konecranes Nuclear Equipment Services (Konecranes) due to the Navy’s breach of its implied duty to not interfere on a commercial-item contract for the provision of 25-ton general purpose portal cranes.

In Portland Mint v. United States, Case No. 22-2154, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the Portland Mint’s claim that the government breached an implied-in-fact contract to pay the Portland Mint for coins tendered under the government’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program.  The Court’s decision is a reminder of the jurisdictional importance in pleading a contract as implied-in-fact rather than implied-in-law. 

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program.  The underlying contract related to the modernization of a fleet of C-5 Galaxy Aircraft, which is the largest U.S. military transport plane and has provided heavy intercontinental strategic airlift capabilities since the 1970s.  The Board sustained the appeal after finding that Lockheed Martin had met its burden of proof on entitlement and quantum, using the measured-mile methodology, which compares an affected period of performance with an unaffected period.  This case is a prime example of marshalling fact and expert witness testimony, and documentary evidence, to demonstrate the impacts of cumulative disruption on performance to justify causation and damages.

In the Crowell & Moring case Parsons Government Services, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 7822, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss concerning Parsons’ claim for additional incentive fee in connection with its performance operating a salt waste processing facility at DOE’s Savannah River Site.  The underlying contract relates to a first-of-its-kind facility to treat and reduce liquid radioactivity in nuclear waste.  In its decision, the Board rejected the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that Parsons had pled sufficient facts to support its claims regarding superior knowledge, impracticability of performance, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Now more than ever, federal contractors find themselves at the intersection of innovation and regulation, particularly in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  AI is now incorporated into a broad range of business systems, including those with the potential to inform contractor employment decisions.  For that reason, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued new guidance entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Equal Employment Opportunity for Federal Contractors” (the “AI Guide”).  OFCCP issued the AI Guide in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (regarding the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”), which we reported on here.  The AI Guide provides answers to commonly asked questions about the use of AI in the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) context.  The AI Guide also offers “Promising Practices,” which highlight a number of important considerations for federal contractors.  Focusing on federal contractors’ obligations and attendant risks when utilizing AI to assist in employment-related decisions, the AI Guide also provides recommendations for ensuring compliance with EEO requirements while harnessing the efficiencies of AI.

In MLU Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA No. 8002, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which the agency filed just four days after MLU failed to timely submit one of its initial pleadings.

On March 28, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Memorandum M-24-10, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence (Memo), updating and implementing OMB’s November 2023 proposed memorandum of the same name.  The Memo directs agencies “to advance AI governance and innovation while managing risks from the use of AI in the Federal Government.”  In the Memo, OMB focuses on three major areas – strengthening AI governance, advancing responsible AI innovation, and managing risks from the use of AI. 

AI remains a critical focus of both the federal government and industry, with multiple efforts in recent weeks to address governance of the development and use of AI in the United States.  On February 26, 2024, a U.S. Department of State-commissioned report, titled “Defense in Depth: An Action Plan to Increase the Safety and Security of Advanced AI” (Action Plan), proposed multiple U.S. Government and partner nation lines of effort to address growing national security risks posed by rapidly expanding AI capabilities, including the expectation of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI).  Just days later, on March 5, 2024, House Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin introduced the Federal AI Governance and Transparency Act.  This bipartisan bill would focus government resources on increasing transparency, oversight, and responsible use of federal AI systems and centrally codifying federal governance of agency AI systems.  Additionally, on March 28, 2024 the Office of Management and Budget released the final guidance on Memorandum M-24-10, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of AI as we address here.

On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in ECC International Constructors, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59586, 59643, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals concluded that, by waiting until after a hearing on the merits and six years after the appeal was filed, the government forfeited its right to challenge the contractor’s satisfaction of the FAR’s sum-certain requirement for Contract Disputes Act claims.

In Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63634 (Jan. 11, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) confirmed that a contractor’s properly asserted claim for relief under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and denied the Air Force’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

On December 19, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied summary judgment in part to Vanderlande Industries (Vanderlande), holding that a reasonable jury could find that Vanderlande negligently misrepresented the viability of subcontractor Ludvik Electric Co.’s (Ludvik) pass-through claims during the parties’ settlement negotiations over the claims. 

On December 20, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a prime contractor’s pandemic-related claims filed on behalf of its subcontractors.  The Board rejected the government’s arguments that the claims failed to state any claims for relief that could be granted, were barred by the affirmative defense of sovereign acts, and failed to provide separate sums certain for purported sub-claims.