A contractor has many requirements when submitting a claim against the federal government. But the government must also abide by some of the same rules.
Case in point, a recent Civilian Board of Contractor Appeals case affirms that the government is bound by the same six-year time limit to file a claim against a contractor that a contractor has to file a claim against the government.
Here’s a situation my colleagues and I see with some frequency: a contractor, in the course of working on a government contract, submits a request of some sort to the agency. Then waits for a response. And waits some more. Meanwhile, the government’s delay in responding prevents the contractor from moving forward with some aspect of the project, causing the contractor to incur costs.
For contractors faced with this type of government inaction, a recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals is welcome news. In that case, the ASBCA held that the government breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by waiting more than three months to respond to the contractor’s request to amend the Statement of Work–allowing the contractor to “twist in the wind” during that period.
A contractor can become entitled to costs during a delay in performance. But when is a government contractor entitled to unabsorbed overhead costs during a government-caused suspension or delay? A recent Civilian Board of Contracts Appeals case answers that question in part.
An agency has broad discretion to terminate a contract for convenience. But sometimes, a contractor will challenge the termination for convenience by arguing that the agency acted in bad faith in terminating the contract.
A recent CBCA decision looks at what type of evidence is needed to establish bad faith. Not surprisingly, the CBCA confirms that the standard of proof is quite high.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals can be used to pursue appeals of claims of all sizes. A special small claims process is available for lower-dollar appeals.
A recent CBCA decision is a good reminder of the small claims procedure available at the Board. In this case, the claimant was able to use this streamlined procedure to win an appeal of its claim for $7,272.17.
Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the fact that the GAO bid protest “effectiveness rate” was a sky-high 47% in FY 2017.
But, somewhat under the radar, contractors did even better at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. According to the ASBCA’s annual report, contractors prevailed (in whole or in part) in 57.6% of FY 2017 ASBCA decisions.
The period of performance under a government contract, measured in “days,” meant calendar days–not business days, as the contractor contended.
In a recent decision, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals applied the FAR’s general definition of “days” in holding that a contractor had not met the contract’s performance schedule.