Lifecycle of a Claim, Part III: Submitting a Claim

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Stephanie M. Harden and David L. Bodner ●

Stephanie Harden's Headshot Photo

Welcome back to our “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series explores the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. Click the subscribe button on the right to get timely updates right in your inbox!

This series walks through this infographic (click here or the image below to expand), which illustrates the lifecycle of a typical claim:

Click here to read our first post and here to read our second post. This post focuses on Step 5 of this process: submitting a claim.

Seven Elements for Submitting a Claim

Once a contractor has made the decision to pursue a CDA claim, the contractor must ensure that it follows the Contract Disputes Act or risk jeopardizing its ability to obtain meaningful judicial review. While the Federal Circuit has made clear that a claim need not take “any particular form or use any particular wording,” below are seven fundamental elements that should be included:

Continue reading “Lifecycle of a Claim, Part III: Submitting a Claim

Lifecycle of a Claim, Part II: Submitting a Request for Equitable Adjustment and Negotiation

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Stephanie M. Harden and David L. Bodner ●

Stephanie Harden's Headshot Photo

Welcome back to our “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series explores the Contract Disputes Act claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. Click the subscribe button on the right to get timely updates right in your inbox!

This series walks through this infographic (click here or the image below to expand), which illustrates the lifecycle of a typical claim:

Click here to read our first post (covering Steps 1 and 2 of the infographic). This post focuses on Steps 3 and 4 of this process: submitting a request for equitable adjustment (“REA”) and negotiating the REA with the contracting officer.

Terminology Defined: What Is the Difference between an REA and a Claim?

There are two primary methods for pursuing a contract adjustment following a change: submitting an REA or filing a claim.

      • REA: A request (rather than a demand) to negotiate with the contracting officer to adjust the contract for price, time, or other terms. There is no FAR definition of an REA but generally an REA does not expressly or implicitly request a contracting officer’s final decision (“COFD”) or contain the FAR 33.207(a) certification.
      • Claim: A “written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract.” FAR 2.101; FAR 52.233-1(c).
Continue readingLifecycle of a Claim, Part II: Submitting a Request for Equitable Adjustment and Negotiation

Court of Federal Claims Confirms “Technical Data” Grants No General Right of Access to Contractor Information

Samarth Barot and Luke W. Meier 

In an important decision for preserving contractor data rights, the Court of Federal Claims recently confirmed that “technical data” has a limited scope and, per the DFARS, includes only information “of a scientific or technical nature.” Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 19-883C, 2022 WL 2353085 (Fed. Cl. June 15, 2022).

Pursuant to DFARS 252.227-7013, if any data is identified as “technical data” the Government may be able to assert licensing rights in a contractor’s noncommercial technical data. See DFARS 252.227-7013(b). In contrast, for any data identified as proprietary non-technical data, the Government cannot assert any licensing rights in the proprietary non-technical data.

Continue reading “Court of Federal Claims Confirms “Technical Data” Grants No General Right of Access to Contractor Information”

Lifecycle of a Claim, Part I: Identifying the Change and Providing Notice

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Stephanie M. Harden and David L. Bodner ●

Stephanie Harden's Headshot Photo

Welcome to our new “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series will explore the Contract Disputes Act claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. Click the subscribe button on the right to get timely updates right in your inbox!

The claims landscape for government contractors can be a minefield of both procedural and substantive issues. Through this series, we are providing a guide to one common type of claim: those arising out of a “change” to the contract.

We are pleased to introduce this infographic (click here or the image below to expand), which illustrates the lifecycle of a typical claim:

This post focuses on Steps 1 and 2 of this process: identifying when a change has occurred and providing timely notice to the Contracting Officer. We begin with a few foundational questions:

What is a change?

There are two primary types of changes:

      • Actual Changes: According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), a change occurs when the Contracting Officer issues a written order to make changes within the general scope of the contract to matters such as drawings, designs, or specifications; the method of shipment or packing; or the place of delivery. See, e.g., FAR 52.243-1.
      • Constructive Changes: A constructive change arises when the contractor is required to perform work beyond the contract requirements, but the Government does not issue a formal change order. Constructive changes can arise from informal orders, defective specifications or other misrepresentations, interference from the Government, or constructive accelerations of performance.
Continue reading “Lifecycle of a Claim, Part I: Identifying the Change and Providing Notice”

GSA Relaxes Price Increase Limitations for FSS Contractors

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Sara N. Gerber


The General Services Administration (“GSA”) Office of Governmentwide Policy recently authorized contracting officers to provide relief to GSA contractors experiencing cost increases due to surging inflation. See Acquisition Letter. To assist struggling contractors, GSA issued a temporary moratorium on the enforcement of certain limitations contained in GSA economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses.

GSA issued the moratorium in response to an uptick in contractors’ requests for price increases and removal of items from their Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contracts to avoid selling at a loss. In issuing the moratorium, GSA recognized that inflationary pressures and price volatility, caused by supply chain disruptions, strong demand, and labor shortages, are ongoing concerns unlikely to abate in the near term. GSA acknowledged that it must help contractors weather this “unusual time”—especially small businesses and new market entrants—to ensure a resilient and diverse federal industrial base and the government’s continued access to critical “products, services, and solutions.”

Continue reading “GSA Relaxes Price Increase Limitations for FSS Contractors”

New Federal Circuit Guidance Regarding Patent and Latent Ambiguities

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Stephanie M. Harden, Patrick F. Collins, and Ustina M. Ibrahim*

Stephanie Harden's Headshot Photo

Ambiguities in a solicitation or contract have long been one of the greatest traps for unwary contractors. At the solicitation phase, a failure to identify a “patent” (i.e., obvious) ambiguity often results in the contractor losing the competition with no viable bid protest challenge. This is because such ambiguities are construed in the agency’s favor. A contractor seeking to recover added costs based upon an ambiguous contract term will be unable to recover such costs if the ambiguity is “patent” and the Government disagrees with the contractor’s interpretation.

Traditional Test for Patent vs. Latent Ambiguities

So how does one distinguish between “patent” and “latent” ambiguities? Numerous Federal Circuit authorities tell us that a patent ambiguity arises where there is “an obvious omission, inconsistency or discrepancy of significance” that “could have been discovered by reasonable and customary care.” E.g., Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 829 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). By contrast, a latent ambiguity is a “hidden or concealed defect which is not apparent on the face of the document, could not be discovered by reasonable and customary care, and is not so patent and glaring as to impose an affirmative duty on plaintiff to seek clarification.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Continue reading “New Federal Circuit Guidance Regarding Patent and Latent Ambiguities”

Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 2)

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Craig Stetson*

Our Part 1 post addressed contract administration related to changes to or a termination of a contract arising from the government’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. This post focuses on the cost management, documentation, and government audit aspects that contractors should be focused on to prepare for and mitigate downstream and currently unknown risks.

Requesting Payment/Compensation

Responding to a change or termination will likely involve submitting a request for payment or compensation. The label placed on a contractor’s request for payment depends on whether its contract has been terminated or has experienced a “change.” The type of request for payment also can vary depending on the type of contract involved (i.e., cost reimbursement, fixed price, or labor hour).

Continue reading “Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 2)”

Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 1)

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Craig Stetson*

It is hard to describe the manner in which the United States is withdrawing from Afghanistan. At this point, the safety and security of Americans and those who provided critical assistance to U.S. operations in Afghanistan are at the forefront of everyone’s thoughts. However, contractors in Afghanistan must confront the repercussions of shutting down operations in Afghanistan or dealing with significant changes in contract performance requirements. Translated—this means ensuring fair compensation for terminated or changed contracts.

This blog post focuses on the contract administration aspects that contractors should be thinking of now to prepare for and mitigate downstream and currently unknown risks. Below is a list of issues for contractors supporting operations in Afghanistan to consider.

Continue reading “Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 1)”

Tips to Maximize Contractor Recoveries for Public Health-Related Claims: Lessons from Pernix Serka and the Ebola Crisis

Justin A. Chiarodo and Stephanie M. Harden

Stephanie Harden's Headshot Photo

Does the mere existence of a deadly epidemic entitle a contractor to monetary relief when it experiences cost increases stemming from that epidemic? Not without Government direction, ruled the Federal Circuit in affirming a decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) in Pernix Serka JV.

The facts of Pernix Serka are striking: a contractor repeatedly requests guidance for dealing with a major health crisis, the Government refuses to provide guidance, and the contractor is unable to recoup the additional costs it incurs in order to proceed with performance because the Government provided no guidance.

This timely ruling sheds light on strategies contractors should consider for recouping costs stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide a roadmap below for navigating these issues in light of Pernix Serka JV.

The 2014 Ebola Crisis

Pernix Serka was in the midst of performing a contract in Sierra Leone when a deadly Ebola outbreak struck the country in 2014. Pernix Serka diligently sought guidance from the Contracting Officer on its State Department (“DOS”) contract, but the Government refused to weigh in on whether it should temporarily shut down its work on the contract. Ultimately, Pernix Serka decided to temporarily withdraw its personnel, which the Government then characterized as Pernix Serka’s “unilateral” decision. When Pernix Serka sought advice on whether and when to resume work, the Government went so far as to say that “DOS will not provide any instructions or directions” regarding whether and when to return to the work site. The contractor ultimately decided to resume performance, but incurred additional costs when it decided to contract for medical facilities and services on the project site.

Continue reading “Tips to Maximize Contractor Recoveries for Public Health-Related Claims: Lessons from Pernix Serka and the Ebola Crisis”

Where Are We Going with Section 889 Part B?

Justin A. Chiarodo, Merle M. DeLancey, Jr., and Robyn N. Burrows

About two months have passed since the August 13, 2020, effective date of Part B of Section 889 of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Part B, sometimes referred to as the Chinese telecommunications equipment ban, broadly prohibits the federal government from contracting with entities that use certain Chinese telecommunications (including video surveillance) equipment and services.

After the FAR Council published its July 10, 2020, Interim Rule, contractors, large and small, spent countless hours working to be able to certify compliance by August 13. This deadline was critical because the Interim Rule said that absent such a certification, a contractor was ineligible for future contract awards. That is, government agencies were prohibited from renewing or extending existing contracts with contractors unable to certify Part B compliance. Indeed, agencies were prohibited from issuing an order under an existing contract to a contractor that failed to certify compliance.

Yet, despite the Rule’s laudable policy goals, the government’s piecemeal and inconsistent implementation has placed government contractors in an untenable position. Continue reading “Where Are We Going with Section 889 Part B?”

%d bloggers like this: