Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) have been controversial in the construction industry. On January 21, 2025, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling in MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. The United States that found that PLAs violate the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). The court’s ruling is a major victory for construction contractors who have long argued that PLAs are anti-competitive. The ruling resulted from multiple consolidated bid protests that challenged the legality of mandatory PLAs in federal construction contracts, specifically as mandated by Executive Order 14063 and implemented through Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions.

Although the decision only applies to the solicitations that were the subject of the bid protest, it is also possible that the Trump Administration will repeal the executive order that gave rise to the protest. In the meantime, it is likely that a bid protest on any pending or future solicitation that contains a PLA requirement will be sustained. Continue Reading Court Rules that PLAs Violate the Competition in Contracting Act

A contractor who is proposed for debarment is effectively debarred as soon as the notice letter is received. It is like being sentenced before trial, and it can take weeks or months for the contractor to convince the debarring official that the proposed debarment should be lifted. A new rule, effective January 17, 2025, amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to improve consistency between procurement and non-procurement procedures regarding suspension and debarment but does not remove the exclusionary effect of a proposed debarment. The final rule, a collaboration between the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is purportedly intended to make the process more transparent and fair. Continue Reading Changes to the Suspension and Debarment Rules in 2025

Contractors often seek to recover attorney’s fees if they successfully present and resolve a claim, either through a negotiated settlement or litigation. In reality, of course, the government usually requires a waiver of Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees as part of a settlement. When winning or partially winning a case before a board or court, a contractor has the right to file an Application for Attorney’s Fees to recover attorney’s fees subject to the statutory limit of $125/hour and various upward adjustments for inflation. Unfortunately, winning is not always enough. Continue Reading The Hidden Hurdle: Why Recovering Legal Fees Under EAJA Is Not a Guarantee for Contractors

The System for Award Management (SAM) is the official website for registering to do business with the U.S. government, such as competing for federal procurement contracts. Under FAR 52.204-7, “an Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract …resulting from the solicitation.” In the recent GAO protest of TLS Joint Venture, LLC (TLS), the awardee of a Navy contract for custodial services learned the hard way that maintaining active registration in SAM from the time of its initial offer until the agency’s award of the contract is a strict requirement, and that non-compliance can produce harsh results. Continue Reading What in the SAM Hill Happened to My Contract?

Construction law is a complex field that intersects with various other industries and legal fields, one being the maritime industry. In nearly twenty years of practicing construction law, I have often experienced the connection between these sophisticated areas of law and the implications of each on various projects, such as the construction of docks, breakwaters, piers, bridges, dredging and beach nourishment projects. In this blog post, we will explore the intricate relationship between these two legal realms by diving into a primer on maritime liens. Continue Reading Navigating the Waters Beyond Construction Law: Unveiling the Ties Between Construction and Maritime Liens

On October 3, 2023, the FAR Council released two proposed rules for federal contractor cybersecurity requirements that relate to cyber threat and incident reporting and information sharing (case 2021-017) and standardizing cybersecurity requirements for unclassified federal information systems (case 2021-019). Both proposed rules not only provide new requirements for federal contractors to follow but also provide new definitions and contract provisions for information and contract technology and federal information systems contracts. Continue Reading New Proposed Cybersecurity Rules Mean Big Changes for Federal Contractors

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently issued a decision regarding a contractor’s claim for increased performance costs due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable about this case is the contractor’s invocation of a July 2, 2020 Department of Defense (DoD) memorandum concerning the financial consequences on contractors with firm-fixed-price contracts lacking an economic price adjustment clause during “historic and unprecedented challenges” in the wake of the pandemic’s onset.
Continue Reading ASBCA Says “Not So Fast” to Contractors Seeking Relief from Pandemic Impacts

As a follow-up to my earlier post about the need to develop a settlement strategy when a claim is headed for litigation, I reviewed the various decisions of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) for the first five months of 2022. The Board entered 107 decisions, and 54 of those decisions were orders dismissing the appeals because the parties had reached a settlement. Some of those settlements resulted from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which the Board enthusiastically promotes, or simply reflected settlements achieved by the parties through negotiation. Interestingly, only two opinions sustained an appeal by a contractor, while most of the other appeals were denied on the merits or due to various pre-trial motions. These motions included Motions for Summary Judgment, Motions to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or the failure to comply with the applicable Statute of Limitations.
Continue Reading The Percentages Favor Settlement of Claims and Appeals

Oftentimes, contractors find it difficult to differentiate between the government’s acts taken in its sovereign capacity as opposed to those taken in its contractual capacity. The government acts in its sovereign capacity when it takes actions that are general and public in nature and do not target any particular contractor; rather the impact of the government’s action on its contracts is merely incidental to the purpose of a broader governmental objective. As two recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) decisions involving contractor claims for COVID-19-related costs illustrate, the distinction between these two roles can make or break a contractor’s claim.
Continue Reading The Sovereign Acts Doctrine Strikes Back: COVID Costs Are Its Latest Victim

The GAO’s recent decision in K&K Industries, Inc. reinforces for disappointed offerors that once the government unequivocally states that a debriefing has concluded, the clock has started ticking on the time to file a protest. Notably, this can be true even if the parties continue discussing the offeror’s proposal.

The Background

On September 28, 2021, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) notified K&K Industries, Inc. (K&K) that it had awarded Blinderman Construction, Co. (Blinderman) a contract involving the design and renovation of a historic barracks building in Fort Riley, Kansas. This notice also informed K&K that the company had a right to request a debriefing. K&K timely requested the debriefing and asked that the debriefing include a redacted copy of the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).
Continue Reading When Exactly Did My Debriefing End?