Who Knew? Limitations Defense Kept in Play Against U.S.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.23.12
In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims found there to be triable issues of fact with regard to the contractor's statute of limitations defense as to when the government's claim accrued, i.e., when the government "knew or should have known" of alleged CAS 418 noncompliance. This case follows a series of similar recent cases at the CFC and the ASBCA and raises the issue of who in the government needs to have notice of a claim for it to accrue -- a contracting officer or "other responsible actors" such as DCAA auditors -- a question the court declined to resolve "[a]t this early juncture" in the proceedings.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
