July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

ASBCA Issues Important Ruling in “Contractor-on-the-Battlefield” Dispute

Earlier this month, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the U.S. Army breached its contractual obligation to provide physical security to its principal logistical support contractor, KBR, during the height of the Iraq War.  As a consequence, the Board found that KBR was entitled to be reimbursed for $44 million, plus interest, in costs that the Government had withheld from KBR relating to KBR’s and its subcontractors’ use of private security. 

Before the Board, the Army had argued that the costs in question were unallowable because KBR’s LOGCAP III contract with the Government prohibited the use of private security.  In response, KBR argued (among other things) that any violation of this prohibition had been excused by the Government’s prior material breach of its obligation to provide physical security.  On the basis of an extensive documentary and testimonial record (including a month-long trial), the Board agreed with KBR, finding:

[D]espite the many and continuing failures of the government to provide the promised level of force protection to KBRS and its subcontractors . . . , the government seeks to disallow the PSC costs incurred . . . in order to accomplish [the] mission under the LOGCAP contract despite the government’s breach, and argues that its breach was not material.  It is hard to imagine a contract breach more material than this one, which eviscerated the promise at the heart of the justification for the government’s claim.

Decision at 39.

The Army had tried to convince the Board not to address the merits of KBR’s prior material breach defense.  In this regard, the Army had raised three principal arguments:  (1) under the Federal Circuit’s Maropakis decision, KBR’s assertion of prior material breach needed to be submitted to the contracting officer for a final decision and KBR did not timely do so; (2) KBR had waived its prior material breach defense by continuing to perform; and (3) KBR’s only remedy for the Army’s breach was to delay performance.  The Board rejected each of these arguments, and its treatment of these issues — which arise in many disputes with the Government — may prove helpful to contractors in the future.

© 2019 Covington & Burling LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Jason Workmaster, Litigation attorney, Covington
Of Counsel

Jason Workmaster focuses his practice on government contracts-related litigation, including civil False Claims Act (FCA) cases, contract disputes, and bid protests. He has represented a host of clients in these types of cases in U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

A nationally recognized leader on FCA issues, Mr. Workmaster has appeared on NBC’s The TODAY Show and Canadian TV’s National News to discuss the highly publicized FCA case against the cyclist Lance Armstrong. Mr....

202 662 5412
Alejandro L. Sarria, Covington Burling, litigation lawyer
Special Counsel

Alejandro L. Sarria is an experienced government contracts litigator and counselor. He represents civilian and defense contractors in litigation involving the federal government, including in contract disputes before the Boards of Contract Appeals (BCA) and U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Mr. Sarria also defends private contractors in high-profile tort cases arising out of military operations, national security programs, and environmental remediation projects.

In his counseling practice, Mr. Sarria advises government contractors on a range of federal procurement issues, including matters involving cost allowability, tort mitigation under federal insurance (FAR 52.228-7) and indemnity provisions (Public Law 85-804, 10 U.S.C. § 2354), TINA cost or pricing data, the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), commercial items and GSA schedule contracting, subcontract flowdowns and formation, the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the SAFETY Act.

202 662 5426