The court rejected Boeing's bases for distinguishing AT&T and held that, consistent with the principles in AT&T, Boeing had waived its challenge to FAR 30.606 when it entered into the representative contract. However, a CDA claim would not likely fully resolve a potential protest of a different contract opportunity because the existing contract and the new contract opportunity may involve separate federal agencies making the relief obtained in a CDA dispute potentially nonbinding on the other agency. In addition, if the contract that is the subject of a CDA claim is cost reimbursement, relief under that contract will not be sufficient to afford relief if the other contract is FFP. Although the contractor in Boeing successfully convinced the Federal Circuit that waiver of its claims was not appropriate, the Boeing decision counsels caution and diligence by contractors so that they do not find themselves having waived significant contract claims. [Extracted from the article]
Copyright of Procurement Lawyer is the property of American Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Please log in to access the full text.