Category: Claims and Disputes

Where Grant Litigation Stands After the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling in NIH

Dominique L. Casimir●

The Supreme Court issued a fractured, 4-1-4 ruling on its emergency docket in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, No. 25A103, 606 U.S. ____ (2025) (per curiam) (“NIH”) on August 21, 2025.

The Court’s ruling left behind a complex legal landscape, because four justices wrote that a district court has jurisdiction to hear both a challenge to agency guidance alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, and challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance. Four other justices wrote that the entire case (i.e., both the challenge to the agency guidance and the challenge to grant terminations based on that guidance) belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. In the end, the outcome was controlled by a single justice (Justice Barrett), who decided the jurisdictional issue in a manner inconsistent with the views of eight justices. In her controlling concurrence, Justice Barrett ruled that a district court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to agency guidance, but lacks jurisdiction to hear challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance because grant termination challenges are subject to the Tucker Act and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Two lower opinions handed down since NIH show lower courts falling in line with Justice Barrett’s ruling in NIH:

Continue reading “Where Grant Litigation Stands After the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling in NIH”

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Sum Certain

Stephanie M. Harden and Shane M. Hannon ●

Appeal of Samho Enterprise, ASBCA No. 63587 (Aug. 13, 2025)

The Bottom Line: The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) requires that if a contractor submits a claim for payment to the Government, the claim must include a “sum certain”—with the emphasis on “certain.” Here, the contractor submitted a claim for damages after the Government declined to exercise the contract’s first option year. The contractor submitted a claim for “no less than” $326,276. The claim’s qualifying language—“no less than”—meant the claim did not state a sum certain. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) therefore dismissed the contractor’s appeal.

Key points of interest:

  • A sum certain is a mandatory element of a CDA claim. If a contractor’s claim fails to state a sum certain, the contracting officer may deny the claim on that basis, and the Board may dismiss any subsequent appeals for failing to state a claim.
  • Using qualifying language to describe the requested amount does not constitute a sum certain. If a claim characterizes its requested amount with qualifying language, like “approximately,” “to be determined,” or “in excess of,” the claim does not state a sum certain under the CDA.
  • Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s 2023 decision in ECC International Constructors, the “sum certain” requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
  • The contractor’s appeal also asked the Board to order the agency to exercise the contract’s option year. The Board reiterated it does not have jurisdiction over requests for specific performance.

Contractors submitting claims for monetary relief must include a “sum certain,” not a “sum approximate.” Failure to state a sum certain is fatal to a claim.

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in California v. Department of Education. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in NIH v. American Public Health Association, reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Since California, several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing California on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously written about some of those cases (including Massachusetts v. Kennedy, which was later consolidated with NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in NIH is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases”

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Act of God or Compensable Delay?

Stephanie M. Harden ●

Welcome to The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates, a new series covering what contractors should know about recent cost and pricing disputes—without the long read!

For our inaugural post, we present:

Appeal of Gideon Contracting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63561 (May 12, 2025)

The Bottom Line: When the Government orders a suspension of work due to an “act of God,” it may still be on the hook for the resulting increased costs under the Suspension of Work clause if it proximately causes an unreasonable delay. Here, the Government proximately caused the delay at issue through its management of water drainage through a lake and dam, including through controlled releases of water, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) found a portion of the delay to be unreasonable.

Key points of interest:

  • Generally, “acts of God” entitle contractors to additional time, but not additional compensation. However, the distinguishing feature entitling Gideon to additional compensation here was that the Government controlled the release of floodwaters via a drainage management system. Thus, the flooding was not caused solely by rainfall, as the Government argued, but rather, by the Government’s release of floodwater.
  • Gideon was not entitled to damages for the entire suspension period, however, because the contract specified when and how water releases would occur. Therefore, Gideon was only entitled to compensation for portions of the suspension that were found to be “unreasonable” (or as described by the Board, inexplicable).

Contractors facing suspensions of work should carefully evaluate whether their contracts may entitle them to relief where at least a portion of such suspensions are “unreasonable.”

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

One of the immediate priorities of the second Trump administration has been the termination of a slew of federal contracts and grants. This, predictably, has led to litigation, mostly filed in the U.S. District Courts, which as we have previously written, have authority to grant equitable relief. The government has been arguing that these cases belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where only monetary damages are available (and only upon meeting the high burden of establishing that the government acted in bad faith). On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction in a case challenging grant terminations, with the five-justice majority suggesting that the termination case belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. But since then, two U.S. District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled—contrary to the Supreme Court’s emergency stay order—that there is indeed district court jurisdiction in cases challenging contract and grant terminations. As Judge Young of the District Court of Massachusetts stated, “…this Court, after careful reflection, finds itself in the somewhat awkward position of agreeing with the Supreme Court dissenters and considering itself bound by the still authoritative decision of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit…” which ruled that the Tucker Act did not apply, and that the government’s actions were reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).

Continue reading “Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations”

Supreme Court Lifts Restraining Order on Grant Terminations

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling with significant impacts for federal contractors and grantees looking to challenge terminations of their contracts and grants in U.S. district courts. Terminated contractors and grantees may strongly prefer to challenge terminations in the district courts rather than in the Court of Federal Claims, because the Court of Federal Claims does not have authority to grant equitable relief to do things like restore funding or enjoin terminations, and the available grounds for challenging contract and grant terminations in the Court of Federal Claims are significantly limited.

In February 2025, the Department of Education (“DOE”) terminated $600 million in grants for teacher training on the grounds that the training included diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) concepts and thus no longer effectuated DOE priorities. The grantees challenged these terminations in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing DOE to restore the terminated grant funding. DOE asked the First Circuit to stay the TRO pending appeal, which the First Circuit denied. DOE then filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices sided with DOE.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Lifts Restraining Order on Grant Terminations”

A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era

Elizabeth N. Jochum, Robyn N. Burrows, and Sara N. Gerber ●


The Department of Government Efficiency’s (“DOGE”) scrutiny of federal contracts has resulted in a spike in notices of termination for convenience. Given DOGE’s broad mandate to reduce federal spending, we expect a sustained increase in the use of terminations for convenience to end contracts the administration considers “wasteful” or not aligned with its priorities.

But while termination notices make one thing clear—the contract is over—it can leave contractors with questions about their rights and obligations.

What Is a Termination for Convenience and Can I Challenge It?

The right to terminate for convenience is included expressly in almost all government contracts—and is generally considered to be a government right even when not expressly included.[1] Terminations for convenience allow the federal government to unilaterally end a contract (or a portion of a contract) immediately and without alleging contractor fault. The government typically invokes a termination for convenience after determining the contract is no longer in its best interests, and this can occur for a wide variety of reasons, such as budget cuts, or changes in government priorities or project requirements. Typically, the government does not explain why it is terminating a contract for convenience.

Continue reading “A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era”

What Is DMSMS and What to Do About It?

David L. Bodner and Dominique L. Casimir ●

What does DMSMS mean?

DMSMS stands for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages. It is the loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers of items, raw materials, or software. In other words, DMSMS is obsolescence. DMSMS occurs when companies (at any level of the supply chain) that make products, raw materials, or software stop doing so or are about to stop. DMSMS issues can occur for various reasons, such as technological advancements, shifts in market demand, regulatory changes, or a manufacturer’s strategic business decision.

Where can contractors find DMSMS requirements?

DMSMS requirements are typically found in prime contracts. Specifically, a Statement of Work (“SOW”) can describe DMSMS requirements such as: a DMSMS Management Plan, a Bill of Materials, Health Status Reports, End of Life Notices, and various other requirements to mitigate DMSMS risks. The contract may use Contract Data Requirements Lists (“CDRLs”) to specify the content of deliverables, the inspection and acceptance process, and the frequency of delivery (e.g., the Contractor must deliver a Health Status Report “monthly” or an End of Life Notice “as required”).

Continue reading “What Is DMSMS and What to Do About It?”

Five Practical Tips for Government Contractors Navigating the Executive Order Chaos

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

Federal government contractors are living in a climate of uncertainty. Executive orders affecting government contracts are being issued at a rapid pace. The executive orders tend to be broad and high-level with regulatory guidance to follow. This is not abnormal. However, the sheer number of executive orders and the magnitude of the regulatory changes they seek to impose is a new phenomenon. Contractors are left to determine what they should be doing, if anything, and when. Set forth below are practical suggestions for contractors to consider during this unsettling time.[1]

  1. Communicate with your Contracting Officer

During the chaos, it is important to communicate with your contracting officer. Only contracting officers are authorized to modify contracts. Do not blindly accept direction from contract specialists or others who purport to be speaking on behalf of the government. Direction received from anyone other than a contracting officer should be immediately relayed to your contracting officer with a request for clarification or guidance. 

Also, be prepared for unclear responses from your contracting officer. Like you, contracting officers also are living through this chaos. They may not have received clear direction to pass on to contractors. Aim to keep your communications with your contracting officer respectful. 

  1. Executive Orders are not Contract Modifications

Remember that executive orders are not contract modifications. Contractors should not change their contract performance or their compliance with, for example, socioeconomic programs unless or until a contract modification signed by a contracting officer. This may be difficult for contractors when they think they can see the writing on the wall. But regulatory and policy changes can occur and, thus, even well-intentioned contractors might make changes they did not need to make or that are different from what is required from a formal contract modification.

  1. Continue Contract Performance

Along the same lines, contractors need to continue contract performance in accordance with the four corners of the contract unless or until a contract is modified. Failure to do so could be considered breach of contract. With the plethora of contract terminations being reported, contractors should not put themselves in the crosshairs by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of their contract, thereby giving the government a basis to terminate for default.  And remember, if you believe the government has breached or improperly changed a contract, a contractor is required to continue performance and seek relief in accordance with the FAR Disputes clause.

  1. Communicate with your Subcontractors

Just as a prime contractor craves concrete guidance from a contracting officer regarding what to do, subcontractors also need guidance and oftentimes more so, because they are unable to communicate directly with the government. Thus, a good practice for prime contractors is to pass along any guidance received from a contracting officer to its subcontractors. Prime contractors also should remind their subcontractors about their obligations to continue contract performance.

  1. Prepare to Defend Your Contract

Contractors also should be prepared to explain the importance of their contracts to the government. To be proactive, contractors should draft narratives explaining the importance of their work and how their performance exceeds contract requirements. Contracts that are considered to “add value” are less likely to be found on the so-called “chopping block.” If appropriate, a contractor should consider including recommendations, for example, regarding how its work can be performed more effectively or efficiently. 

We hope this practical advice will help you navigate the government contracting chaos until the dust settles. 

[1] See our previous related blog posts: Understanding President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI: Implications for Federal Contractors;  What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know;  Fixed Price Contracts: Government Contractors Beware;  What GSA Contractors Need to Know About the New FAR Deviation for Revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity;  Preliminary Injunction Granted Related to DEI-Related Executive Orders—Takeaways for Government Contractors;  President Trump Signs New Executive Order: “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—What Federal Contractors Need to Know.

Today’s General Counsel referenced this post in an article on March 17, 2025. Read the article here: Risk Management for Federal Contractors During Regulatory Changes.

What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know

Stephanie M. Harden, Jennifer A. Short, Justin A. Chiarodo, Shane M. Hannon, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The Trump administration’s directives to “pause” grant funding and to terminate certain grants and contracts sent shock waves through the government contracts and non-profit sectors. Although the “pause” in grant funding has been temporarily halted by a federal court (as of January 28), other terminations and suspensions have not been blocked. We summarize below the steps entities can take to preserve their rights as they navigate these emerging directives.

But First: What Happened? 

Immediately after his inauguration on January 20, President Trump began ordering federal agencies to pause funding for certain projects or initiatives. A January 20 Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Unleashing American Energy” encouraged energy exploration and production and eliminated electric vehicle mandates. It directed agencies to “immediately pause” all disbursements under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Another EO titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” directed the Office of Management and Budget to terminate DEI programs (see our prior analysis of this EO here). Consequently, the new Department of Government Efficiency announced on January 24 that approximately $420 million in current or impending contracts, most of which related to DEI programs, were cancelled.

Consistent with these orders, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) on January 27 directed federal agencies to pause, as of January 28 at 5:00 PM ET, all payments and obligations to disburse any federal financial assistance, including financial assistance for nongovernmental organizations. The two-page OMB policy memo stated that the paused programs will be assessed to determine whether they are consistent with the administration’s new policy objectives. This directive has led to widespread chaos, prompting the administration to issue additional guidance on January 28 regarding the scope and purpose of the January 27 funding freeze. The freeze on grant funding was then temporarily halted by a federal district court later in the day.

Federal contractors performing contracts or projects subject to these EOs or OMB instructions have or likely will soon receive stop work orders or, in some cases, notices that the government is terminating for convenience. A “suspension of work” or “stop-work” order pauses performance for a period of time, after which the government may decide either to resume performance or terminate the contract. A notice of termination for convenience, as its name suggests, is the mechanism by which the government unilaterally terminates the contract as of right.

Continue reading “What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know”
Exit mobile version
%%footer%%