Catherine O. Shames
Overview
Catherine O. Shames is a counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring, where she is a member of the firmʼs Government Contracts Group.
Career & Education
- College of William & Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law, J.D.
- College of William & Mary, Mason School of Business, M.B.A.
- Duke University, Sanford School of Public Policy, M.P.P.
- Randolph-Macon Woman's College, B.A.
- District of Columbia
- Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Catherine's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.15.25
All Together Now: “Many Ways to Calculate Fee After a T4C”
A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) reinforces the FAR part 49 provisions governing terminations for convenience, which provide that contractors are entitled to fair compensation and that settlements for such terminations should not rigidly rely on cost and accounting data. In D-STAR Eng’g Corp., ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780 (Apr. 28, 2025), the government had terminated the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee research and development contract for convenience. Following the contractor’s submission of its termination settlement proposal (TSP), the government questioned certain costs claimed, disputed the fee owed to the contractor, determined it had overpaid the contractor, and issued a debt demand claim for disallowed costs. The contractor then submitted its own, affirmative claim incorporating its TSP and seeking additional costs and interest. The most interesting portion of the ASBCA’s decision is its discussion of the methods available to the parties to calculate the amount of fee to which the contractor was entitled following the termination for convenience, which we describe below. However, the ASBCA also addressed the allowability and allocability of various cost types that may be of interest, including termination settlement costs, direct labor, engineering overhead, and G&A.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.21.25
Contractor Business Systems: Out With the Old, In With the New (Terminology)
Insights
Catherine's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.15.25
All Together Now: “Many Ways to Calculate Fee After a T4C”
A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) reinforces the FAR part 49 provisions governing terminations for convenience, which provide that contractors are entitled to fair compensation and that settlements for such terminations should not rigidly rely on cost and accounting data. In D-STAR Eng’g Corp., ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780 (Apr. 28, 2025), the government had terminated the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee research and development contract for convenience. Following the contractor’s submission of its termination settlement proposal (TSP), the government questioned certain costs claimed, disputed the fee owed to the contractor, determined it had overpaid the contractor, and issued a debt demand claim for disallowed costs. The contractor then submitted its own, affirmative claim incorporating its TSP and seeking additional costs and interest. The most interesting portion of the ASBCA’s decision is its discussion of the methods available to the parties to calculate the amount of fee to which the contractor was entitled following the termination for convenience, which we describe below. However, the ASBCA also addressed the allowability and allocability of various cost types that may be of interest, including termination settlement costs, direct labor, engineering overhead, and G&A.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.21.25
Contractor Business Systems: Out With the Old, In With the New (Terminology)
