Compliance Stuff

Government contractors are familiar with the “government contractor defense” that can limit liability for work performed under a federal contract. The defense is often discussed through two classic Supreme Court cases: (1)  Yearsley , sometimes described as “derivative sovereign immunity,” and (2)  Boyle , which recognized federal preemption of certain state-law tort claims. While powerful, neither is a blank check. The Supreme Court has now clarified how these doctrines apply, while signaling a narrower focus in general. Merely having a federal contract, even in a combat zone, may not be enough to shield you from liability. Clear contractual instruction and compliance with those instructions will be critical to contractors going forward. The case is  Hencely v. Fluor Corp. , decided April 22, 2026. Let’s get into it. A grisly case. By the time a case hits the Supreme Court, it has concentrated down to one or a few very high-level legal issues. Yet, the facts matter, and ...

Highlights Government contractors frequently encounter issues resulting from contract changes, government-caused delays and unexpected terminations that can significantly impact a project's cost and schedule, leaving them to resolve disputes with the federal government through a unique and complex legal framework. This Holland & Knight alert provides a practical overview of the primary mechanisms for resolving such disputes, such as Requests for Equitable Adjustment (REA), and outlines the life cycle of contract disputes, from informal negotiations to formal litigation. Understanding these distinct pathways can help contractors facing an adverse government action better position themselves to protect their rights, maximize potential recovery and make strategic decisions. Even with diligent performance, government contractors frequently encounter issues related to contract changes, government-caused delays and unexpected terminations that can significantly impact a project's...