Sign up for Seyfarth’s Coronavirus roundup email.
Visit Seyfarth’s Coronavirus resource page.

The impact of COVID-19, the ensuing delays and changes in the work, protecting the contractor’s cash flow, and avoiding a default termination are now top of mind for every construction contractor. This article reviews delay principles, changes in the work, default and convenience terminations, illness of key personnel, stop work orders, and other considerations related to claims and defenses arising from COVID-19. Contractors must be alert to the practical aspects of entitlement and recovery under the clauses that come into play.
Continue Reading

With the exponential spread of COVID-19, owners, contractors, and design professionals are recognizing the substantial impact this pandemic will have on the construction industry. Several states issued shelter-in-place orders, resulting in the suspension of some construction work.[1] In some states, this has resulted in work stoppages on some of our nation’s largest infrastructure projects. The financial impact of these work stoppages will be significant. As a result, parties to construction agreements have looked to their force majeure clauses for guidance on how these issues should be addressed.
Continue Reading

On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Such a declaration has significant implications on the contracting community navigating the federal procurement process. While contractors are undoubtedly trying to manage existing contracts in light of labor and supply chain disruptions, many will be looking at the procurement landscape for business opportunities. Federal procurement law contains a number of provisions that authorize streamlined procurement procedures for major disasters or national emergencies. This article addresses the procedures that federal agencies may employ during a national emergency such as COVID-19. Because these procedures do not often look like typical procurement procedures, contractors should be mindful of the rules to better position themselves as they seek out opportunities.
Continue Reading

Federal contractors already subject to a myriad of reporting requirements should be prepared for yet another. Effective December 23, 2019, a new Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provision entitled “Reporting of Nonconforming Items to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program” requires federal contractors and subcontractors to report to the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (“GIDEP”) certain counterfeit or suspect counterfeit parts and certain major or critical nonconformances. The new FAR provision (48 C.F.R. § 46.317) and clause (FAR 52.246-26) applies to both civilian and defense contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, currently $150,000.

Where did this rule come from?


Continue Reading

Foreign states and their agencies engage in a variety of construction projects in the United States, all of which are subject to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSA”).[1] This article explains some of the key aspects of the FSA that foreign governments and contractors should consider when engaging in those projects.

Foreign States and Their Agencies

Foreign states are treated differently from their agencies for certain aspects of the FSA. In deciding whether an entity is the foreign state itself or an agency of it, courts typically evaluate the entity’s primary purpose. If governmental, the entity is considered the foreign state itself, and if commercial, the entity is considered an agency. One line of cases holds if the entity is an integral part of a foreign state’s political structure, it is considered the foreign state itself.
Continue Reading

President Trump continues to push forward with his “Buy American, Hire American” initiative with the issuance of his third Executive Order No. 13881 (the “Order”) on July 15, 2019, entitled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials.” This Order attempts to strengthen the standards that federal agencies must follow under the Buy American Act (“BAA”) by raising the threshold for domestic purchasing requirements.
Continue Reading

Congress enacted the Buy American Act (“BAA”) during the Great Depression, in order to protect American industry from foreign competition on federal procurement contracts. While the BAA is simplistic in its policy goal of promoting domestic purchasing, government contractors and subcontractors are often faced with complex and confusing rules for compliance.
Continue Reading

On April 25 and 26, James Newland, partner in Seyfarth’s Construction Practice Group, will be presenting the “Changes and Claims in Government Construction Contracting” course at the Federal Publications Seminar at the Executive Conference and Training Center in Sterling, Virginia. His presentation will focus on owner changes and contractor claims in the federal government contracting

The typical government contract contains a laundry list of standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Defense Federal Regulation Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) clauses that outline the requirements for the construction or services to be provided. These clauses are either expressly stated, i.e. written out in full length in the contract, or incorporated by reference to a particular provision which the contractor must research for the specific language. But contractors beware: not all contracts are what they seem. Since 1963, courts have held that certain clauses are so integral to public procurements that they are deemed incorporated by operation of law, even if they are omitted from the contract.
Continue Reading

Potential Outcomes and Implications for the False Claims Act

On March 19, 2019, Seyfarth’s Anthony LaPlaca and Teddie Arnold witnessed oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court in a government contracts case that has major implications for future enforcement of the federal False Claims Act (FCA).[1] In Cochise Consultancy, the Court is asked to interpret the FCA’s statutes of limitations, which govern the time frame in which the government may initiate a civil false claim suit against a contractor.[2] While the Court will likely consider the case for several months before it issues any decision, the questions posed at oral argument seem to hint at how it will ultimately decide the issue.
Continue Reading