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 | 2 min read | 07.15.26
CMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in Solicitations
As discussed in more detail here, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) recently issued a memorandum (Memo 26-P-1023, dated July 13, 2026) directing the immediate suspension of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Phase II requirements (Level I and II self assessments are still permitted). Significantly, the memo directs that “all pending and future CMMC implementation milestones across DoW solicitations and contracts are held in abeyance until further notice.” Moreover, the DoW issued a memorandum on implementing these requirements (available here), directing agencies to issue amendments removing CMMC Level 2 and 3 requirements from active solicitations “as soon as practicable.” Contractors should monitor the government’s compliance with this requirement and should be prepared, if needed, to file a bid protest to protect their rights.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.15.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.14.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.13.26
Amici Rally Behind Liberty Global, Urging Tenth Circuit to Rein in Economic Substance Doctrine
