Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Government-Furnished Estimated Quantities

By Michael H. Payne & Casey J. McKinnon on October 10, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Mallet And Yellow Hardhat In Courtroom

Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States provides hope to contractors that incur higher than anticipated costs on a requirements contract or, alternatively, on construction contracts where line item prices are based on estimated quantities. 

In Agility, the Federal Circuit examined whether the provision of historical workload data satisfied the Government’s responsibility to provide a realistic estimated quantity in a procurement for a requirements contract. The dispute arose out of a fixed-price requirements contract for the disposal of surplus military property. The Government provided historical data and estimated workloads prior to the submission of proposals.

The contractor submitted claims seeking payment based on a theory of negligent workload estimates. After the Government denied those claims, the contractor appealed to the Court of Federal Claims. While the Court of Federal Claims acknowledged that the contractor had experienced higher workloads than in previous years, it ultimately denied the contractor’s claims, reasoning that the Government’s estimates were acceptable because it had provided offerors with historical data.

The Federal Circuit reversed that decision and ruled in favor of the contractor. The Court held that the contractor had satisfied its burden to show that the Government’s estimates were negligent because the historical data provided was not the most current information available. Here, the contractor presented evidence that the Government was aware that there would likely be a surge in workload after contract award, but failed to disclose that information to offerors. In such a case, while the historical data was accurate, the Government’s estimate was negligent because it possessed information that was more current and more accurate than the historical data.

Although the burden of proof is high in these disputes, Agility demonstrates that contractors may prevail where the Government fails to provide the most current information in its possession.

Michael H. Payne is Chair of the Firm’s Federal Contracting Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters including bid protests, claims and appeals, procurement issues, small business issues, and dispute resolution.

Casey J. McKinnon is an Associate in the Federal Contracting Group and focuses his practice on government contracts and litigation

Photo of Michael H. Payne Michael H. Payne

As Chair of the firm’s growing Government Contracting Group, Michael represents contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers on a wide range of federal contracting issues, including the interpretation of solicitation and contract provisions, the filing of bid protests, resolution of disputes, and the preparation of…

As Chair of the firm’s growing Government Contracting Group, Michael represents contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers on a wide range of federal contracting issues, including the interpretation of solicitation and contract provisions, the filing of bid protests, resolution of disputes, and the preparation of contract claims and the litigation of appeals. Michael has vast experience in federal government contracting, stemming from his time as Chief Trial Attorney for the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, and is recognized in the federal construction contracting industry as an attorney who enjoys a good working relationship with government agencies.

Continue Reading

Read more about Michael H. PayneEmailMichael's Linkedin ProfileMichael's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Casey J. McKinnon Casey J. McKinnon

Casey advises contractors on a broad range of federal contracting issues, including the filing of bid protests, interpretation of solicitation and contract provisions, resolution of disputes, and the preparation of contract claims and the litigation of appeals. He also counsels clients on complex…

Casey advises contractors on a broad range of federal contracting issues, including the filing of bid protests, interpretation of solicitation and contract provisions, resolution of disputes, and the preparation of contract claims and the litigation of appeals. He also counsels clients on complex questions concerning the intricacies of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), domestic preference requirements such as the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, and day-to-day issues that arise from contract performance.

Continue Reading

Read more about Casey J. McKinnonEmailCasey's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government Contracts
  • Blog:
    Federal Construction Contracting Blog
  • Organization:
    Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo