Boards of Contract Appeals

A termination for default (T for D) is “a drastic sanction which should be imposed or sustained only for good grounds and on solid evidence.” A T for D will impact future responsibility determinations and needs to be fought by contractors who want to continue to work in the Government market. In DMW Marine Group v. Department of Commerce, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) granted a contractor’s appeal, effectively reversing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) T for D based on the contractor’s failure to provide a certification called for under the contract. The Board’s decision reflects a common-sense understanding of the exchanges between the parties—and a proper rejection of an overly aggressive use of the “drastic sanction.”
Continue Reading The CBCA Issues an Interesting “T for D” Decision, Applying UCC Principles to Reach a Common-Sense Result

Object-White Podium_14754214Medium

Last week, Marcia Madsen presented a paper to the ABA’s Tenth Annual Institute on the Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement. In her paper and during her presentation, she asked whether makes sense to litigate the meaning of procurement statutes, regulations, and contracts in civil False Claims Act cases in the federal district