Insights

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.

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 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.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2023, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies such as the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Central Intelligence Agency. According to this year’s report, contractors prevailed in 45% of the appeals decided on the merits, which is much higher than the 21% success rate in 2022. The report also shows that the CBCA’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program remains successful—resolving 70% of appeals for which the parties completed ADR. All of this came in the context of a substantial jump in the number of appeals, with 246 new appeals docketed in 2023 compared to 177 in 2022 and 185 in 2021. Click here to view the full CBCA report.

On November 1, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2023 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, other Defense agencies, Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

On May 15, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) in J&J Maintenance, Inc., d/b/a J&J Worldwide Services, ASBCA No. 63013 issued an instructive analysis of its jurisdiction to hear monetary and nonmonetary claims.  Partially granting a government motion to dismiss, the ASBCA explained that, if a contractor does not seek monetary relief in its claim to the contracting officer (“CO”), then the contractor cannot seek monetary relief on appeal to the Board.  Addressing the contractor’s claim for contract interpretation, however, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss and held that, where a contractor can reasonably articulate “significant consequences” of its claim other than the recovery of money, the fact that the claim may also have a financial impact on the parties does not strip the Board of jurisdiction. 

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced in a July 29, 2022 Change Order notice that the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) had revised the Field Operations Handbook (“FOH”) by deleting the exemption under the Service Contract Act (“SCA”) for federal contracts to operate Job Corps Centers.  Prime contractors and subcontractors operating these centers will now be subject to the SCA and FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, according to DOL. 

In Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2020-2341, 2021 WL 5872256 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Court of Federal Claims’ (“COFC”) decision holding that the contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment for damages caused by the Government’s breach of the implied warranty that satisfactory contract performance will result from adherence to contractual specifications.