Insights

Washington – August 15, 2024: The 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 42 Crowell & Moring lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 29 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – August 17, 2023: The 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 47 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 41 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Earlier this year, we highlighted a notable Court of Federal Claims (CFC) decision recognizing that an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) contractor may be able to recover proposal preparation costs under the CFC’s bid protest jurisdiction. Now, in Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States, another CFC decision has reaches a similar conclusion and goes even further — also highlighting the potential to recover under the Court’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction.  

A recent Court of Federal Claims decision addressed a novel fact pattern involving a bid protest (seeking bid preparation costs) relating to an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) and has the potential to expand contractor recovery opportunities in both areas of law.

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.