By Christopher E. Hale

Contractors pursuing claims against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) can often fall victim to the jurisdictional pitfalls of the Act from the very start of the claims process, i.e., with the claim itself. After a contracting officer denies a claim under the CDA, a contractor can appeal the decision to either a Board of Contracts Appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. However, there is no shortage of cases in which such appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the original requests for payment did not constitute “claims” under the CDA.


Continue Reading Avoiding “Embarrassment” In Contract Disputes Act Litigation: Routine vs. Non-Routine Requests For Payment

By Bruce Shirk

The U.S. won’t be able to avoid a crippling debt crisis as long as Congress refuses to include defense spending . . . in the mix of program cuts to reduce federal spending, the co-chairman of the presidential debt commission said Tuesday.  


Army Times
, March 8, 2011, available here
 

Terminations for the Government’s convenience developed as a tool to avoid enormous procurements upon completion of a war effort.  Because public policy counseled against proceeding with wartime contracts after an end to [Civil War] hostilities the government, under certain circumstances, began to terminate contracts and settle with the contractor for partial performance.  


Krygoski Constr. Co. v. United States,
94 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996)


Continue Reading Terminations For Convenience And Creedence Clearwater Revival: “Bad Moon Rising”