Bill Strong Enterprises, Inc. v. John Shannon, Acting Secretary of the Army

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a legal, accounting, or consulting cost incurred in connection with the prosecution of a CDA claim or an appeal against the Government is per se unallowable”
• expressing “no view” on the recoverability of consulting costs incurred after the relationship of the parties “ripened in to a FAR 33.201 claim,” but finding that costs incurred prior to a CDA claim arising are presumptively recoverable
• submission “cannot be considered a formal CDA claim since [it] did not request a final decision of the CO”
• overruled in part on other grounds, Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1579, n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
• “[I]f a contractor’s underlying purpose for incurring a cost is to promote the prosecution of a CDA claim against the Government, then such cost is unallowable under FAR 31.205-33. (capitalization in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).