Skip to main content

Claims & Disputes Litigation

We offer clients a broad and deep claims litigation practice, assisting in all aspects of government contracts litigation, including preparation and pursuit of large, complex claims against the U.S. government and defense against government claims. We are one of the few firms with the bench strength to handle such large claims. We represent clients in matters involving noncompliance with cost accounting standards, cost disallowances, contract termination, breach, contract changes, defective pricing, Multiple Award Schedule contracts, construction contracts and many other disputes under the Contract Disputes Act. Additionally, we routinely handle disputes under subcontracts and teaming agreements. Our practice group has won a number of precedent-setting cases. Our claims and disputes work spans many industries, including defense and aerospace, construction, electronics, financial services, professional services, information technology, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices and equipment.

When possible, our attorneys make use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including straightforward negotiations, mediation and arbitration proceedings, mini-trials, and third-party neutral advisors, saving clients time and resources. Nevertheless, we have vast experience litigating before the boards of contract appeals, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as a variety of state courts and Federal District courts as matters warrant.

  • Triple Canopy, Inc., in the successful recovery of amounts withheld on security contracts arising, in part, from the consequences of an after-imposed Iraqi law implicating the ability to perform security contracts in the country through an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure. Triple Canopy, Inc. v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 6538 (May 5, 2022).
  • GardaWorld Federal Services, in the successful defense against an Army motion for summary judgment seeking to reduce payments on security contracts. Board held that the government had not demonstrated diminished value under the Inspection and Acceptance clause. Aegis Defense Serv., LLC d/b/a/ GardaWorld Defense Serv., ASBCA Nos. 62442, et al. (March 30, 2022).
  • ACADEMI, LLC in securing a favorable settlement through an ADR proceeding involving penalties for allegedly expressly unallowable costs, imposition of unilateral rate determinations, and allowability of certain direct costs. The issues spanned three fiscal years. ACADEMI LLC, ASBCA Nos. 60886 et al., (March 1, 2022).
  • Telos in securing a favorable settlement in a matter involving the government’s issuance of a unilateral rate determination that challenged two underlying cost accounting practices. Telos Corp., ASBCA No. 62950 (Dec. 16, 2021).
  • ACADEMI Training Center LLC, in securing a successful resolution, by alternative dispute resolution, on a contractor claim of approximately $12 million and a government claim of approximately $3.6 million involving the interpretation of purported caps on G&A, ODC, and fringe rates. ACADEMI Training Center LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61977, 62296 (April 2, 2021)
  • Telos in securing a judgment in favor of Telos involving the government's refusal to reimburse upward adjustments arising from finalized indirect rates on an Air Force contract under government theories of Limitation of Cost and Limitation of Funds clause. Telos Corp., ASBCA No. 62600 (March 3, 2021)
  • L3Harris Technologies in the successful resolution of a contract dispute involving a change in cost accounting practice through alternative dispute resolution. L3Harris Technologies, ASBCA No. 62474 (Feb. 9, 2021).
  • Booz Allen Hamilton in the successful resolution of a dispute involving a government claim for adjustment of fee with the full withdrawal of the government claim. Booz Allen Hamilton, ASBCA No. 62570 (Jul. 23, 2020).
  • L3Harris Technologies in securing a judgment before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in favor of L3Harris for a deficit arising from a pension segment closure under Cost Account Standard 413. L3Harris Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 62438 (June 2, 2020).
  • LSQ Funding Group, L.C. successfully resolved a unique Assignment of Claims Act dispute through alternative means. LSQ Funding Group, L.C., v. United States, No. 18-1848C (Fed. Cl. 2020).
  • Defended Major Defense Contractor against government claims of government use rights into several complex intellectual property. The government ultimately conceded to the validity of each of the contractor's asserted intellectual property rights and dropped its claim for government use rights.
  • Successfully mediated appeal of claim for equitable adjustment for private security contractor in connection with Department of State Task Order contract.
  • Successfully settled appeal of significant claims for equitable adjustment related to background investigation contracts before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.
  • ACADEMI LLC against government claims of unallowable costs and unilateral rate designations. ACADEMI LLC, ASBCA Nos. 60886 et al.
  • RAND Corporation against a government claim that the company failed to comply with CAS 405 and that the company is liable for penalties under FAR 42.709-7 for inclusion of allegedly expressly unallowable costs involving advertising. Rand Corp., ASBCA No. 60642. (resolved through negotiation (August 2017)).
  • Al Arrab Contracting, Inc., a prominent Saudi construction firm, in its claim filed at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals against the U.S. Army. The Army acted as contracting office for the Saudi National Guard during a complex construction project erecting three schools in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for which ACC was prime contractor. Al Arrab Contracting, Inc., ASBCA No. 58493, 58877.
  • University of Maryland involving claims for recovery of various types of leave expenses and a government counterclaim involving vacation leave expenses under a contract with the Maryland Procurement Office. University of Maryland, ASBCA Nos. 60223, 60224 (2018).
  • Raytheon Company against a government claim alleging defective pricing under the Truth in Negotiations Act. Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense Sys., ASBCA No. 60784 (resolved through negotiation (Dec. 2017).
  • Raytheon Company against a government claim that the company failed to comply with CAS 415 and CAS 403 involving forfeitures under its deferred compensation plan. Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 58849. (resolved through negotiation (Jan. 2017)).
  • Raytheon Company in an ADR process against a government claim to Government Purpose Rights in technical data and software. Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA No. 59755 (January 3, 2017).
  • Raytheon Company against government claims involving cost impacts for changes in cost accounting practices. In a precedent-setting decision, the ASBCA held that the government's long-standing practice of counting decreases on fixed price contracts as increased costs paid by the government was an impermissible double counting under the CAS statute and "the very definition of a windfall." The ASBCA also permitted offsets, prior to 2005, for increased costs against decreased costs for multiple changes made on the same day. Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA Nos. 57801 et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 36024. In a subsequent decision, the ASBCA held that the government abused its discretion in failing to find cost impacts.
  • Computer Sciences Corporation against a government claim that the company included certain unallowable and expressly unallowable costs as direct costs under an IRS contract. The government ultimately withdrew its claim. Computer Sciences Corp. v. Department of the Treasury, CBCA No. 4917 (Sept. 11, 2015) (dismissed).
  • Harris Corporation in the resolution of a government claim that the company included certain unallowable costs per the Material Management Acquisition Regulations as direct costs under a Government Publishing Office contract through bilateral negotiation. Harris Corporation v. U.S. Government Publishing Office, GAOCAB No. 2015-05.
  • Triple Canopy, Inc. against a government claim that the company improperly included $62 million of subcontractor costs for dog handlers under the labor categories per the 2005 version of FAR 52.232-7, Time and Materials. The contractor included a Maropakis-style counterclaim asserting entitlement to $64 million pursuant to the terms of the contract and proposal. Triple Canopy, Inc. v. United States, C-291 (Fed. Cl., Jul. 29, 2015) (dismissed).
  • Raytheon Company against a government claim of $17 million for an alleged failure to comply with a disclosed cost accounting practice. The board ruled that the Contract Disputes Act statute of limitations barred the claim. The board issued a seminal ruling outlining a number of precepts under the statute of limitations: The burden of proof rests with the party assert jurisdiction, not the party invoking the statute of limitations; the constructive knowledge element of claim accrual is subject to an "inherently unknowable" test; a DCAA audit report does not delay claim accrual; the government cannot avert claim accrual by insulating the contracting officer from knowledge; claim accrual "is not suspended simply because the government hay have been delayed in appreciating the implications of what [the contractor] had disclosed." Raytheon Missile Systems, ASBCA No. 58011, 13 BCA ¶ 35,241.
  • Raytheon Company against a government claim alleging defective pricing under the Truth in Negotiations Act. The government rescinded its contracting officer's final decision. Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 58012 (June 6, 2013).
  • Raytheon Company against government claims based on allegations of noncompliance with CAS 405 and penalties for expressly unallowable costs under the statute of limitations. In a precedent-setting decision, the board held that the government should have known of the basis of its claim for one fiscal year based on DCAA audit reports stating such findings well before the six-year limitations period along with the submission of indirect cost rate proposal more than six years prior to the claim. For two other fiscal years, the board held that the government's claim accrued upon the submission of its overhead proposals and forward pricing rate brochures. Raytheon Company, ASBCA Nos. 57576, 57679, 13 BCA ¶ 35,209.
  • Raytheon Company in eliminating 80% of consolidated claims (wherein the government alleged entitlement to adjustments due to changes in cost accounting practices) under the statute of limitations. In a seminal decision, the board ruled that a claim for increased costs under a change in cost accounting practice accrues upon submission of the notice of the change and a General Dollar Magnitude cost impact. The board held that "concealed or inherently unknowable test" is interchangeable with the "knew or should have known test" and begins what the claimant "learns or reasonably should have learned" of the cause of action. The board also held that "[c]laim accrual does not depend on the degree of detail provided, whether the contractor revises the calculations later, or whether the contractor characterized the impact as 'immaterial.'" Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA Nos. 57801 et al., 13 BCA ¶ 35,319.
  • Harris Corporation in pre- and post-final decision ADR regarding an allegation of noncompliance with CAS 403. The parties successfully resolved the matter in a two-day ADR proceeding. Harris Corp., ASBCA No. 58022 (Dec. 5, 2012) (dismissed).
  • Raytheon Company in a government claim regarding the allowability of more than $25 million of Voluntary Compliance Resolution costs incurred to preserve the tax status of a defined benefit pension plan. In a seminal case, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Contract Disputes Act statute of limitations barred the government's claim. The court specifically held that a DCAA audit report does not postpone accrual of a government claim. Raytheon Company v. United States of America, 104 Fed. Cl. 327, recon denied, 105 Fed. Cl. 351 (2012).
  • Raytheon Company in an appeal before the ASBCA, whereby Raytheon contested a government claim for $40.7 million (plus compound daily interest) for increased costs in the aggregate due to a change in accounting practice involving the measurement of pension costs. The ASBCA ruled in favor of Raytheon as a matter of law and denied the government's claim in full. Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 56701, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,735.
  • Raytheon Company in an appeal before the ASBCA involving a government claim of noncompliance with CAS 412-50(d)(2) and (d)(4) and FAR 31.205-6(j)(1)(i) regarding funding requirements for defined applicable to certain defined benefit pension plans. The parties reached a resolution through ADR. Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 55764 (April 2011) (dismissed).
  • Global Management Systems, Inc. in converting and alleging termination for default to a termination for convenience through ADR. Global Management Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 56761 (March 2011).