Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights provides our in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting. Through Insights, our attorneys offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments and trends that are shaping the industry. We also examine a full array of non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Morrison Foerster’s nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice represents the world’s leading companies in the aerospace and defense, intelligence, cybersecurity, information technology, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and logistics support sectors. We are enlisted to address our clients’ most complex and important legal issues. Our work includes contract and subcontract negotiation and other transactional matters, business and regulatory compliance counseling, internal investigations, bid protests, and a wide array of enforcement and litigation matters. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to small and medium-sized companies just entering the public sector. We advise both U.S. and non-U.S. companies involved in municipal, state, federal, and non-U.S. procurement matters.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

GAO Protest Timeline

govcon-gao-protest-timeline-thumb.jpg

Govcon GAO Post Award Protest Timeline Article

Contract Disputes Act Claim Timeline

govcon-contract-disputes-timeline-thumb.jpg

The Bayh-Dole Act

govcon-bayhdole-thumb.jpg

Anatomy of a Protest

govcon-federalclaimsprotest-thumb.jpg

Allowability of Legal Costs

govcon-allowabilityoflegalcosts-thumb.jpg

Procurement Integrity Act

240715-procurement-integrity-act-resized.jpg

Govcon-Resources

Tina is Co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, with a focus on general contract counseling and compliance, particularly concerning intellectual property, and cybersecurity matters and federal grant funding.Tina counsels contractors on compliance with federal, state and local acquisition and ethics regulations and with the evolving myriad of requirements pertaining to data security and cybersecurity. She has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with mandatory and voluntary disclosures to agencies, and litigation of False Claims Act matters.Tina routinely advises clients concerning:<ul><li>Prime-subcontractor relationships</li><li>Sources of supply and country of origin requirements</li><li>Price reductions and price reporting issues</li><li>Organizational conflicts of interest</li><li>Safeguarding of intellectual property and other proprietary interests</li><li>Licensing and data rights issues</li><li>Handling of classified materials and controlled unclassified information</li><li>Agency suspension and debarment proceedings</li></ul>She also assists clients with due diligence and other activities related to the acquisition of government contracting concerns, and with the drafting and negotiation of teaming agreements, subcontracts, licensing agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements. She also assists clients applying for federal grants (including SBIR and STTR agreements), and those who seek to obtain other transactional authority agreements, as well as those competing for state and local government work.Tina’s litigation experience includes government contracts claims litigation in federal courts and before boards of contract appeals, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, and complex disputes in federal courts, including civil fraud and False Claims Act litigation and reverse Freedom of Information Act litigation.Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Tina worked at another large national firm and as a trial attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy, Navy Litigation Office.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Negotiation of largest CHIPS Act federal funding agreement between multinational semiconductor corporation and U.S. Department of Commerce.</li><li>Negotiated prime contract and major subcontracts related to the Department of Energy’s next generation supercomputer program, including extensive IP rights negotiations and negotiation of associated patent rights waivers.</li><li>Negotiated series of other transaction authority agreements with DARPA and associated subcontracts with more than a dozen research universities on behalf of a firm biotech client, including complex IP rights allocations and material transfer agreements.</li><li>Assist clients with FedRAMP authorization process and with development of license agreements for software products sold to federal, state and local government agencies.</li><li>Cyber incident response counseling to some of the largest companies and organizations impacted by security incidents.</li><li>Advises clients on Bayh-Dole reporting of inventions and IP strategies for contracts and grants.</li><li>Conducts due diligence for major government contract mergers and acquisitions.</li></ul>

reynolds_tina_blog_150x150.png

reynolds_tina_common_640x280.jpg

reynolds_tina_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

reynolds_tina_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

reynolds_tina_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Our government contracts and procurement attorneys counsel businesses on legal and compliance issues encountered when doing business with government entities.

Government Contracts + Public Procurement

Government Contracts and Procurement Attorneys

Band 1: National: Government Contracts

Tier 1: Government Contracts

Readers Choice Award: Government Contracting

Tina is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She counsels a wide variety of government contractors on compliance with federal acquisition and ethics regulations. She drafts and negotiates contracts on their behalf and has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with bid protest, contract claims, and False Claims Act litigation. She also advises on M&A transactions involving government contractors.

Tina D. Reynolds

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters. He has represented both protesters and awardees in scores of protests before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims, and procuring agencies, in acquisitions ranging from small business procurements to multibillion-dollar contracts of global significance. His representative protest matters span the aerospace sector, the Intelligence Community, base operations and logistics, healthcare, nuclear and environmental work, and information technology and software acquisitions. His protests have included both classified and unclassified programs. In addition to prevailing in published decisions, Jim has also secured favorable corrective action on behalf of clients in a wide variety of protests that were resolved without a published decision.Jim’s work also focuses on disputes over cost allowability and compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and he has appeared before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, in size and status protests before Small Business Administration (SBA) area offices, and appeals before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. Jim regularly counsels clients on contract interpretation, organizational conflicts of interest, and small business compliance.Jim graduated with high honors from the George Washington University Law School, where he focused his studies on federal procurement law, was a member of the Law Review, and interned with the General Services Administration’s suspension and debarment office. Jim also holds a degree in theology magna cum laude from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in classical languages and literature summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

tucker_james_blog_150x150.png

tucker_james_common_640x280.jpg

tucker_james_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tucker_james_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tucker_james_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters.

James Tucker

<div style="margin-bottom: 15px;" class="videoWrapper"><iframe class="sticky-video" title="Meet Alex Ward, Government Contracts Practice Co-Chair" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TkliwdSlTaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="1" title="iframe"></iframe></div>J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including investigations, bid protests, claims, general litigation, corporate transactions, and counseling. Alex strives in all matters is to provide his clients the highest level of efficient and effective representation.Alex represents contractors in internal and external investigations, disclosures to the government, and qui tam litigation, with great success in reducing or eliminating his clients’ exposure through active engagement with the government. His work in this area includes obtaining numerous declinations and dismissals of False Claims Act cases in their earliest stages, sparing his clients the cost, risk, and exposure of litigation.He has also served as lead counsel in dozens of bid protests involving military and civilian agency procurements of a wide range of products and services, including all manner of pre- and post-award protests in the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and state tribunals, as well as appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and size protest appeals before the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.Alex handles all aspects of the claims process, from the initial assessment and drafting of requests for equitable adjustment through litigation in the Boards of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims. Alex’s practice also covers the full gamut of other controversies confronting government contractors, including prime-sub, teaming partner, employer-employee, competitor, and indemnification disputes. His litigation work also includes a wide variety of pro bono engagements, in which he has represented both individual and institutional clients in matters ranging from immigration and criminal defense to sustainable procurement and protection of the environment.Prior to joining the firm, Alex served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer and an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army responsible for civil works and international matters, and as a clerk for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the D.C. Circuit. He is a member of the Boards of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and of Law360’s Government Contracts Editorial Board.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alex is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, investigations, corporate transactions, and counseling.

J. Alex Ward

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and procurement. Through Insights, attorneys from our nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice will offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments that are shaping the industry. This blog will also examine a full array of U.S. and non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Read about our <a href="http://govcon.mofo.com/editors/">Authors</a>.Never miss a post. Subscribe to get real-time updates.

gov-con-feature-image-thumb1.jpg

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

gov-con-feature-image_(1)1.jpg

The United States Capitol building

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and proc

Announcements & Press

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

Mofo+

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Our Government Contracts Insights blog provides in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting U.S. government contracting and non-U.S. public procureme

Government Contracts Insights

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Blog - Govcon RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Government Contracts Insights. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The latest updates and analysis from Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Acquisition Regulations

Artificial Intelligence + Robotics

Compliance

Coronavirus

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy

Data Rights

Defense

Domestic Preferences

False Claims Act

Federal Procurement

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Grants

Health Care

Intellectual Property

International Public Procurement

Labor & Employment

Mergers & Acquisitions

National Security

Protests & Litigation

Resources

Schedule Contracting

Small Business

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

James A. Tucker

Kickstarting AI in the Federal Government: OMB’s Policy to Implement Executive Order 14179

Bid Protest Spotlight: Instructions, Price Evaluation, Standing

FAR Overhaul Underway

FedRAMP 20x: Reformulating the Authorization Process

Court of Federal Claims Confirms Jurisdiction over Other Transaction (OT) Bid Protests

LinkedIN

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the $484 billion relief package that passed in the Senate earlier this week. Once signed into law, the legislation will revive the Small Business Administration (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which had its initial $349 billion in appropriated funding exhausted just days after the application process began. The new package, titled the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (the “Act”), adds an additional $310 billion in funding to the PPP. In addition, it increases the amounts appropriated under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) for economic injury disaster loans (EIDLs), emergency grants, hospital and other medical providers’ recovery and COVID-19 testing. Of particular relevance to small businesses, the Act doubles the amount allocated for EIDLs, authorizing $20 billion in funding (instead of $10 billion). Qualifying businesses that have been impacted by the COVID-19 emergency may apply for EIDLs in addition to PPP loans. The EIDL program also allows qualifying businesses to apply for EIDL advances that can serve as bridge liquidity while business owners wait for more substantial or more permanent sources of financing.The PPP, which we have written about <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200327-faq-coronavirus-economic-stabilization-act-cesa.html">previously</a>, provides aid to qualifying small businesses in the form of loans with terms favorable to borrowers, including provisions for loan forgiveness if the proceeds are spent on payroll and other qualifying expenses. Other relief programs are available for mid-size and larger businesses under the CARES Act that are administered by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve.In a set of <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Paycheck-Protection-Program-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf">additional FAQs</a> released earlier today, the Treasury Department and SBA provided additional guidance on PPP eligibility, motivated in part, it seems, by recent negative publicity about large and well-capitalized businesses taking out additional funding. In addressing a question as to whether companies with adequate sources of liquidity might qualify for PPP loans, the agencies provided the following clarification:Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification.The FAQ went on to clarify that if a company that previously applied for a loan now believes, based on this additional guidance, that it should return a loan, “[a]ny borrower that applied for a PPP loan prior to the issuance of this guidance and repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020 will be deemed by SBA to have made the required certification in good faith.” In addition, lenders need not perform additional research in order to rely on the borrower’s certification that the loan was necessary.The SBA is likely to face a significant application backlog when processing restarts, which could lead to increased wait times for businesses seeking relief. Even with the additional appropriation, there is uncertainty about how long the new funding will last before it, too, is exhausted. There is overwhelming interest in the program as small businesses around the country seek relief from the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 public health emergency. A number of applications are also still in queue to be processed, on hold from when the last round of funding expired. Should this additional funding be quickly depleted, Congress may soon face a choice of whether to authorize some form of perpetual funding for the program or else face the prospect of returning to the negotiating table every few weeks until the crisis abates.

Tina is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Government Contracts practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmace

Tina Reynolds

Anser Advisory

ARKA

Arlington Capital

Battle Investment Group

Behrman Capital

Cadmus

Chainalysis

CollabraLink

Definitive Logic

Emmes

Enlightenment Capital

Grant Thornton

Griffon Corporation

eTelligent

L3Harris

Jacobs

LinQuest Corporation

Micross

Sagewind

Sedgwick

Sigma Defense

teKnoluxion

The Building People

VariQ

specht_damien_blog_150x150.png

specht_damien_common_640x280.jpg

specht_damien_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

specht_damien_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

specht_damien_social_600x600.jpg

Damien is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. He represents clients in all facets of government contracts transactions, as well as regulatory counseling, subcon

Damien Specht

Damien C. Specht

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2.jpg

House Passes a $484 Billion Relief Package; Treasury and the SBA Release New Guidelines for PPP Loans

Updated Coronavirus (COVID-19) Guidelines For Employers

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the $484 billion relief package that passed in the Senate earlier this week. On

House Passes a $484 Billion Relief Package; Treasury and the SBA Release New Guidelines for PPP Loans

During these uncertain times, small businesses have been pursuing both Paycheck Protection Program and SBA Economic Injury Disaster loans.  Note, however, that Disaster loan applications submitted manually to the SBA prior to March 27 may require resubmission.  After the passage of the CARES Act, to expedite the loan processing, SBA streamlined the application process.  This overhaul eliminated the manual process.  The new application is digital, does not require documentation to upload, and allows for self-certification.  If applying for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan, up to $10,000 in advance funds will be made available within days of a successful application.  This loan advance will not have to be repaid.  The link to the SBA website for COVID-19 small business relief is <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options">here</a>.If you intend to call to check on the status of a loan, be sure to have your loan reference number available, and be prepared for a hold time between one and two hours.  The SBA helpline is 1-800-659-2955.Please see our previous posts on the Paycheck Protection Program:<ul><li>April 6, 2020: <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://govcon.mofo.com/coronavirus/newly-issued-interim-rules-update-paycheck-protection-program-loan-eligibility-considerations/">Newly Issued Interim Rules Update Paycheck Protection Program Loan Eligibility Considerations</a></li><li>April 1, 2020: <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://govcon.mofo.com/small-business/treasury-department-issues-guidance-and-application-for-paycheck-protection-program-loans/">Treasury Department Issues Guidance (And Application) for Paycheck Protection Program Loans</a></li></ul>*David Allman is a Law Clerk in the Washington, D.C. office and is not admitted to the bar.

SBA Overhauls the Disaster Loan Application Process in Response to the CARES Act

During these uncertain times, small businesses have been pursuing both Paycheck Protection Program and SBA Economic Injury Disaster loans.  Note, however, that 

SBA Overhauls the Disaster Loan Application Process in Response to the CARES Act

Communities across the country and around the world are fighting a war against COVID‑19.  This is also true – maybe even especially true – for government contractors.  Responding to COVID-19 raises wartime contracting issues on the home front and abroad.  As we previously observed in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltdc107bc777a4b3f5/627318da8e09542a15b7df63/190424-contracting-fog-war.pdf">Contracting in the Fog of War</a>, contractors providing goods and services in war-torn corners of the world are exposed to increased performance risks, such as border closures and restrictions on access to military installations.  Responding to COVID-19 raises many of the same types of issues.  Without a crystal ball, no one can know exactly how COVID-19 will impact government contractors, but understanding the law that has developed around war risks allows for some informed predictions about the kinds of delays and incurred costs that are likely to be compensable.  Adding to the case law we covered in our Fog of War article, a recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), Korea Engineering Consultants Corp., ASBCA 61724, further illuminates the limits of a contractor’s ability to recover for unforeseen risks.Korea Engineering Consultants Corporation (“KECC”) contracted with the 411th Contracting Support Brigade, Korea, for gravel delivery and equipment lease.  The contract required KECC to deliver equipment to the construction site and provided for a 30-day lease.  At the end of the lease, KECC was required to pick up the leased equipment from the construction site.  KECC delivered the equipment, but at the end of the lease, local national Korean protesters blocked KECC from accessing the installation to pick up the equipment.  KECC subsequently brought a claim for breach of contract due to delays caused by the protesters blocking access to the installation.  The ASBCA denied KECC’s claims because the delay and resulting costs were caused by the protesters, not the U.S. Government.  Nothing in the contract assigned the risk of lost access to the installation and the equipment to the Government; therefore, the contractor bore the costs caused by the protesters alone.FactsDelivery of the gravel and leased equipment was initially scheduled for August 25, 2017, but the U.S. Government suddenly canceled the scheduled delivery and rescheduled it for a later date.  KECC delivered the required materials to the installation on September 7, 2017.On October 2, 2017, the government informed KECC that it had finished using the leased equipment, and KECC communicated its intent to pick up the equipment from the installation on October 11, 2017.  However, on October 11, local national Korean protesters prevented KECC from gaining access to the installation.KECC informed the contracting officer (“CO”) via email that it had incurred additional costs in attempting to retrieve the equipment.  The email also stated that the contracting officer’s representative (“COR”) had acknowledged the problem and promised that the government would be responsible for any additional costs incurred as a result of the failed attempt to pick up the equipment.The CO, COR, and KECC exchanged several communications regarding a new pick-up date between October 2017 and January 2018.  The parties discussed KECC removing the equipment on December 21, 2017, but then pick up on this date was canceled due to protester activity.  During this time, KECC emailed the CO, requesting additional costs incurred as a result of the sudden cancellation on August 25, 2017, and the failed attempt to retrieve the equipment on October 11, 2017, as well as additional equipment rental fees covering the extended lease period.  On January 16, 2018, the CO informed KECC that the government was not hindering the company’s access to the equipment and that the contractor must retrieve its equipment.  A later email stated that the contract did not require the U.S. Government or the Republic of Korea to provide an escort onto the installation and that it was KECC’s responsibility to retrieve its equipment.On April 25, 2018, about six months after the end of the original lease period, KECC’s vehicles joined an Army convoy entering the installation, allowing KECC to retrieve its equipment from the site.KECC submitted a breach of contract claim seeking costs incurred (1) on August 25, 2017, when the government canceled the scheduled delivery, (2) on October 11, 2017, when KECC was unable to retrieve the equipment from the installation, and (3) for an extension of the equipment lease from the end of the lease period until the date it was retrieved from the installation on April 25, 2018.  The CO issued a final decision sustaining KECC’s request for costs incurred on August 25, 2017, but denying KECC’s other claims.KECC brought a claim for breach of contract, seeking compensation for the extended equipment lease and costs incurred in attempting to retrieve the equipment on October 11, 2017.Compensation for Extended Equipment LeaseThe ASBCA found that KECC offered insufficient legal support for its argument that the government was at fault for KECC’s inability to timely remove the equipment at the end of the lease.  KECC had the burden of proof as the party asserting a claim for breach of contract.  Under the terms of the contract, KECC was responsible for picking up its equipment after the lease expired.  When the lease expired, the government informed KECC that it was finished with the equipment and instructed KECC to pick up the equipment.The ASBCA found that KECC was unable to retrieve its equipment “not because of government action or inaction, but because local national Korean protesters blocked access to the installation.”  The Board stated, “[i]t is well established that ‘absent fault or negligence or an unqualified warranty on the part of its representatives, the Government is not liable for damages resulting from the action of third parties.’”The ASBCA noted, “[i]n essence, appellant alleges a constructive change”; however, a constructive change only “occurs when a contractor performs work beyond the contract requirements, without a formal order under the Changes clause, due either to an express or implied informal order from an authorized government official or to government fault.’”The ASBCA rejected the constructive change theory because KECC’s inability to remove its equipment was not the fault of the U.S. Government, but rather was caused by the protesters.  Furthermore, the contract’s Commercial Items Changes clause, FAR 52.212-4(c), required that changes in the terms and conditions of the contract be made by written agreement of the parties.  Because KECC could not cite a formal order, or an express or implied formal order, from an authorized government official agreeing to extend the lease payments, the constructive change doctrine could not apply.Costs Incurred on October 11, 2017Similarly, the ASBCA found that KECC’s alleged costs incurred on October 11, 2017, when it was prevented from accessing the installation to retrieve its equipment, were caused by local national Korean protesters, not the U.S. Government.  While the COR allegedly offered to reimburse appellant for its costs, the COR lacked authority to make such an agreement or commit the government to the payment of funds.  Therefore, even if the constructive change doctrine applied, KECC could not establish entitlement to reimbursement by the government for costs incurred on October 11, 2017, because it could not point to a formal order, or express or implied formal order, from an authorized government official agreeing to reimburse its costs incurred on October 11, 2017.TakeawayFirst, pay careful attention to how risks and obligations are allocated.  In this case, the contractor was responsible for picking up the equipment at the end of the lease and bore the risk of lost access to the installation and the equipment.  The contract contained no warranty of access.  The government did not assume the risk of increased costs resulting from the actions of third parties, such as local national Korean protesters, and the fact that protesters inhibited access to the installation did not create a contractual obligation on the government to deliver the equipment to KECC.  While the contract provided for use of a convoy to bring equipment onto the post, it did not provide for use of a convoy to remove the equipment at the end of the lease period.Second, know who you are dealing with.  A fundamental rule in government contracts is that only government personnel with the requisite authority are able to legally bind the government to contracts or contract modifications.  One of the underlying issues in this case was KECC’s reliance on the COR’s statement that the government would reimburse it for its costs.  In this case, as is true in most cases, the COR did not have authority to bind the government.  When a government employee directs contractors to change contract performance, the contractor must ascertain whether the government employee is acting within his or her contractual authority.  This point is particularly important in times of crisis, when changes may be made rapidly.Third, stay attuned to whether the government is acting affirmatively or merely remaining passive.  This case likely would have turned out differently if, for example, KECC had been unable to deliver the equipment to the installation in the first place due to the protests, and yet the government had demanded timely performance or had simply refused to grant an extension.  In that instance, KECC would have been able to assert a valid claim for constructive acceleration.  As it turned out, however, the government could merely sit back and wash its hands of the problem, leaving it up to the contractor to figure out how to recover its equipment.

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

Flight Support, Inc.

DynCorp Int’l LLC

Raytheon Co.

DynCorp International, LLC v. United States

URS Federal Servs., Inc.

DynCorp International, LLC

Planned Sys. Int’l, Inc.

Threat Mgmt. Group, LLC

Vencore Servs. & Solutions, Inc.

Jacobs Tech., Inc.

Cubic, Inc.

American Institutes for Research v. State of New Mexico

CACI-WGI, Inc.

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

IAP World Servs., Inc.

Size Appeal of IAP World Servs., Inc.

Al-Ghanim v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

O’Gara Training & Servs., LLC

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

AAR Mobility Sys.

Matt Martin Real Estate Mgm’t, LLC v. United States

Pyramid Real Estate Servs., LLC v. United States

Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc.

Homesource Real Estate Asset Servs., Inc. v. United States

Limits on a Contractor’s Ability to Recover for Unforeseen Risks in the Age of COVID-19