In government contracts, the doctrine of accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense that discharges a claim because some performance different from that which was claimed to be due is rendered and the claimant accepts such performance as full satisfaction of his claim. Accord and satisfaction may be viewed as a type of settlement agreement that typically takes the form of a bilateral modification executed by the government and its contractor. Furthermore, the terms of the bilateral modification are considered to be the best evidence of the parties’ intent to enter into an accord and satisfaction. To invoke the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, the party asserting the affirmative defense must demonstrate that four elements are met. First, the subject matter must be proper. Second, both parties must be competent; that is, the individuals signing the bilateral modification on behalf of the parties must be duly authorized. Third, there must have been a meeting of the minds between the parties. A meeting of the minds exists when there are accompanying expressions sufficient to make a reasonable claimant understand that the performance offered is in full satisfaction of the claim. Fourth, and finally, there must exist some form of valid consideration, which is defined as a bargained-for exchange that consists of an act, forbearance, or a return promise. If these four elements are met, the doctrine of accord and satisfaction may be invoked to discharge the claimant’s claim.

The federal government has the right to unilaterally terminate contracts when it is in the government’s interest to do so. In the event of a termination for convenience, the contractor may typically submit its termination settlement proposal within a year of the termination. Since the contractor submits the settlement proposal primarily for negotiation purposes, it is not considered a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) when it is first submitted to the contracting officer (CO). Stated another way, the termination settlement proposal is considered an instrument of negotiation rather than a non-routine request for payment or a request for the CO’s final decision. For this reason, the costs of preparing a termination settlement proposal are also generally considered allowable. However, if the termination settlement proposal otherwise meets the requirements of a claim, it can be converted into a CDA claim if the parties’ negotiations reach an “impasse” and the contractor demands that the CO issue a final decision. In this context, an impasse means a deadlock or a point where a resolution through continued negotiations is unlikely when viewed from the perspective of an objective, third-party observer. Notably, whether the parties’ negotiations have reached an impasse is a question of fact, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) bid protest regulations require protesters to provide a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of protest. While the GAO does not require protesters to file formal briefs or other technical forms of pleadings or motions, protesters must nevertheless file concise and logically arranged protests that clearly state legally sufficient protest grounds. On July 14, 2025, the GAO submitted a proposal in response to Section 885 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, clarifying and enhancing its pleading standard. While this new pleading standard is not a significant change from the previous standard, it provides added clarification that protesters’ bare allegations are insufficient to meet GAO’s pleading requirements. Under this new standard, protesters must provide, at a minimum, credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester’s claim of improper agency action. Stated another way, protesters must provide more than a bare allegation, such that the allegation is supported by some explanation and evidence that establishes the likelihood the protester will prevail in its claim. In practical terms, the GAO will continue to dismiss protests or specific allegations within that are based on speculation, factual inaccuracies, or flawed legal assumptions.

The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program allows federal agencies to acquire services from pre-approved vendors via simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8. When utilizing the FSS program, procuring agencies may not purchase “open market items,” which are any services not already listed on a vendor’s GSA schedule. At the same time, the services on a vendor’s schedule may not always directly correlate to the requirements of the solicitation. In such situations, the relevant inquiry is whether the required services are within the scope of the vendor’s schedule contract, as reasonably interpreted. In deciding whether their GSA schedule covers services being sought in the solicitation, contractors should determine whether the required function in the solicitation is the same as the function covered under their schedule contract. In this regard, services are not considered open market items if they are within the scope of particular line items on the FSS contract. Additionally, while the broader, general scope of a schedule contract and the description of its Special Item Numbers (SINs) are relevant in determining the scope of line items, such descriptions are not dispositive to resolve whether the services are covered by the schedule contract.