REAs, Claims, and Appeals
Overview
For companies doing business with the federal government, certain government contracts may not go as planned. Filing a claim related to a government contract—and appealing that claim, if necessary—can seem daunting to prime contractors and subcontractors. Attorneys in PilieroMazza’s REAs, Claims, and Appeals Group offer government contractors of all sizes seasoned counsel in preparing, prosecuting, and settling claims across all types of government contracts. Clients from a wide range of industries benefit from the Group’s substantial experience advocating for their rights, as well as our productive relationships with government representatives from various agencies.
While performing a government contract, a prime or subcontractor may discover that:
- it has experienced one or more delays to performance;
- the government-furnished technical data package contains errors or ambiguities;
- the government-furnished information or equipment was delivered late or does not work;
- the government agency’s inspections were more rigorous than could have been reasonably expected;
- the government agency directs it to perform work outside the scope of the contract; or
- there are any number of other performance problems outside of its control.
Each of the above challenges may have caused the prime or subcontractor delays in or increased the cost of performing the contract. The prime contractor may need to file a request for equitable adjustment (REA) or a formal “claim” in order to recoup time and/or money.
Notable illustrations of our attorneys’ experience with claims and appeals include:
- With respect to a federal environment remediation contract, PilieroMazza attorneys filed an appeal before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals with regard to a wrongful termination for default related to the inability of the contractor, through no fault of its own, to obtain bonding. Our attorneys prosecuted a settlement in which it obtained a conversion of the termination for default into a no-cost termination for convenience.
- Successfully represented a government contractor who the government had unjustifiably terminated for default from a commercial item supply contract for the delivery of fuel to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. On appeal, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found the government had not met its burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of the contractor’s default. The termination was converted from a termination for default to a termination for convenience.
- For a federal government construction contract, the Firm prosecuted a large-scale set of claims which involved numerous issues including, among others, differing site conditions, constructive change, and a wrongful termination of the contract for default. After appealing this set of claims at the Court of Federal Claims, PilieroMazza attorneys obtained a settlement in which our client received a monetary recovery in excess of $500,000 and a conversion of the termination for default to a modification of the contract.
- Successfully represented a contractor on the appeal of a base debarment from certain Department of Defense installations in the Middle East. After review of the surrounding facts and circumstances examined in the written appeal, the Department of the Army approved the appeal and reinstated the contractor’s access to all previously barred installations. The contractor has since returned to working overseas on behalf of the United States military.
- In a federal government construction contract for repairs of two dormitories, PilieroMazza attorneys pursued a request for equitable adjustment and, subsequently, claims which involved delay and differing site condition issues. After appealing the claims before the Court of Federal Claims, our attorneys obtained a monetary settlement through alternative dispute resolution mediation at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
Areas of Focus
Related Practice Areas
