CDA Jurisdiction Implications in Software Manufacturer Claims Based on EULA Incorporation in Federal Contracts

July 29, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

Software manufacturers that provide commercial software to the government via pre-approved intermediary software vendors on the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) do not contract directly with the federal government. Due to this lack of privity of contract with the government, such software manufacturers are unable to bring direct contract claims against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Since the software manufacturers’ end-user licensing agreement (EULA) is typically incorporated into the government contract and dictates the government’s use of the commercial software – the government’s violation of the EULA is considered a non-frivolous cause of action for a breach of contract claim. However, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) refused to recognize the right of software manufacturers in such situations to bring a direct CDA claim when the intermediary GSA FSS software vendor does not sponsor their claim against the government.

In the underlying claim at issue, the software manufacturer had alleged that end users at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated its EULA in 2015. The claim was not sponsored by the GSA FSS software vendor. The software manufacturer alleged that as part of FAR Part 12 acquisition of software licenses, FDA end users owed it a freestanding obligation, as they had “clicked” a box representing their agreement to the terms of the EULA. According to the software manufacturer, this freestanding obligation owed by FDA end users, created a privity of contract between the software manufacturer and the FDA. Meanwhile, the GSA and the FDA did not deny the software manufacturer’s allegations concerning the specific acts of the FDA end users leading to the alleged violations of the EULA. However, the agencies generally denied violating any legal obligations to the software manufacturer citing a lack of privity between the government and the software manufacturer, and the GSA FSS software vendor’s lack of sponsorship of the software manufacturer’s claim. The software manufacturer’s January 2019 appeal at the CBCA was dismissed by the Board for a lack of jurisdiction. The software manufacturer appealed the CBCA’s dismissal at the Federal Circuit. In March 2024, the Federal Circuit in Avue Technologies Corp. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 96 F.4th 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (covered here) vacated and remanded for the CBCA to consider as a merits issue, whether the software manufacturer was a party to – or otherwise had enforceable rights pursuant to the “procurement contract” – defined by the Federal Circuit as the software manufacturer’s EULA in addition to the underlying GSA FSS or task order contract.

In the most recent decision issued on July 1, 2024, the CBCA began its analysis by acknowledging the applicability of the “mandate rule” according to which the Board could not consider any issues already decided by the Federal Circuit. In accordance with the rule, the Board’s decision was primarily limited to a discussion of issues explicitly remanded by the Federal Circuit. In rejecting the agencies’ arguments that the EULA was not a contract at all, the CBCA agreed with the software manufacturer that the EULA was “contractual” at least for the purposes of summary judgment. In determining the EULA to be “contractual,” the CBCA also noted that it was of little consequence for the purposes of this determination, that the terms of the licensing agreement were not negotiated by the contracting officer (CO) or even known to the FDA end users until the software had been acquired and delivered. Consequently, the CBCA ruled that not only was the EULA “contractual,” but it was also binding upon the government. However, despite this ruling, the CBCA concluded that the EULA was not a “procurement contract” for the purposes of CDA litigation. Here, the Board agreed with the agencies that no government officials possessing the requisite authority, such as the CO, took any actions that would indicate that the government entered into a “procurement contract” with the software manufacturer.

In reiterating that the EULA, standing alone, lacked core aspects of a CDA “procurement contract,” the CBCA clarified that since the EULA was incorporated into the pre-approved software vendor’s procurement contract(s), the software manufacturer was a “licensor” (as opposed to a contractor) that conferred upon the government, conditional permission to use its software. Meanwhile, the pre-approved software vendor was the “contractor” that arranged for the software license to be procured by the agencies via its FSS contract. The CBCA ruled that the software manufacturer was not the “contractor” because neither GSA, nor the FDA paid the software manufacturer directly, and the government did not procure the software’s use license from the software manufacturer. Therefore, the Government’s receipt of the software license, standing alone, was not an acquisition of property or services, and the EULA was not a “procurement contract” that could sustain CDA claims litigation on its own. In refusing to exercise jurisdiction, the Board also compared the “contractual” and legally binding EULA to a suretyship arrangement which was previously brought before the Board. In that case, the Board had refused to exercise jurisdiction because the suretyship arrangement, while legally binding, was not a “procurement contract” subject to the CDA.

Regarding the issue of whether any enforceable CDA rights originated from the “contractual” and legally binding EULA, the CBCA understood the Federal Circuit’s instructions as requiring it to determine, on the merits, whether the software manufacturer had any enforceable rights under either the software vendor’s underlying FSS contract or the FSS task order – both of which were “procurement contracts” in which the legally binding EULA was incorporated. The CBCA ruled that the software manufacturer did not have any enforceable CDA rights under the software vendor’s GSA FSS or task order contract. Therefore, the CBCA also reiterated its rejection of the software manufacturer’s earlier argument that the CBCA should exercise CDA jurisdiction over its appeals because the software manufacturer’s EULA was “related to” the software vendor’s underlying FSS contract. The CBCA also rejected the notion that privity of contract could exist between the software manufacturer and the government based upon the conduct of the parties, which indicated a “contractual” relationship despite the tiered nature of the contracting scheme. In dismissing the appeals for a lack of jurisdiction, the CBCA stated that it was not aware of any adjudicative forum that had previously held that a party other than the prime contractor could establish CDA jurisdiction by relying on a separate agreement that relates to a CDA procurement contract. The CBCA made it clear that it would not be the first to do so.

Finally, the Board interpreted the clause added to GSA FSS contracts via a July 2015 class deviation (which permits software manufactures to bring breach of contract actions against procuring agencies), as applicable to the present contract. However, while applicable, the GSA clause was not sufficient to grant the Board jurisdiction in this case. According to the Board, the clause only permitted a software manufacturer to pursue its contractual rights under an FSS incorporated EULA, if it could establish the pre-existence of CDA jurisdiction, independent of the government’s breach of the EULA. The CBCA explained that CDA jurisdiction could not be expanded by regulation to confer jurisdiction where it did not otherwise exist. Therefore, the GSA clause added via the July 2015 class deviation could not be interpreted as permitting software “licensors” to assert direct claims against the government. Instead, the Board opined that a natural reading of that GSA clause indicated that the clause only permitted pass-through claims by software manufactures as subcontractors to their pre-approved GSA FSS vendors.

While the CBCA agreed with the software manufacturer that its EULA was “contractual” and binding upon the government agencies that used its software, it reiterated that the EULA, standing alone, was not a “procurement contract” that would allow the software manufacturer to bring a CDA claim against the government without the GSA FSS software vendor’s sponsorship. Additionally, the CBCA ruled that the software manufacturer did not have any enforceable rights under the CDA in the pre-approved software vendor’s GSA FSS or task order contracts. Notably, the CBCA also determined that the GSA clause added via the 2015 class deviation could not expand CDA jurisdiction to encompass claims by software manufacturers that indirectly sell commercial software to the government via pre-approved GSA FSS software vendors. Therefore, such software manufacturers would need to bring any breach of contract actions alleging the government’s violation of their EULA as traditional pass-through claims in most situations.

This Federal Contract Claims Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

Asserting Commercial Software Manufacturer Claims Based on End User Licensing Agreements in Federal Supply Schedule Contracts

March 27, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

The U.S. Federal Government often utilizes federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts to purchase commercially available off-the-shelf software (COTS) software from reputable pre-vetted software vendors. These FSS contracts are administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), and they eliminate the need for lengthy open-market solicitations for common COTS software products. FSS contracts permit agencies to purchase COTS software products quickly and efficiently from pre-vetted software vendors using pricing that reflects volume discounts due to GSA’s government-wide purchasing leverage. Generally, the COTS software product manufacturer’s end-user licensing agreement (EULA) is incorporated into the procurement contract and dictates the Government’s use of the COTS software. The term “contractor” has been expressly defined in 41 U.S.C. § 7107(7) as a “party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government.” Therefore, in COTS software product purchases, since the pre-vetted software vendor has the FSS contract with the Government, the COTS software product manufacturer is generally not considered a contractor in the traditional sense because it is not a party to the Government contract. Accordingly, since the CDA does not permit appeals by anyone who is not a party to a Government contract, COTS software product manufacturers are generally unable to bring contract claims against the Government under the CDA. However, subcontractors and certain third parties may achieve privity of contract with the Government under particular circumstances, which allows them to bring claims against the Federal Government under the CDA.

Asserting Breach of Contract Actions Due to the Government’s Faulty or Negligent Administration of Contracts

June 27, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

In the performance of government contracts, there are instances where the government does not breach any specific terms or conditions of the contract but is nevertheless responsible for the contractor’s damages due to the fault or negligence of government officials. If the government personnel’s negligence or fault occurs in the administration of the contract, the government may be liable for breach of contract. In such situations, the contractor must prove its breach of contract claim by showing that the government had an obligation or duty arising out of the contract and that the government was in breach of this contractual obligation. Additionally, the contractor asserting the breach of contract claim due to the government’s fault or negligence in administration must also establish that the damages it claims were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract award. Finally, the contractor’s damages must also be the natural and proximate result of the government’s breach. Notably, while the contractor may recover damages resulting from the natural and probable consequences of the government’s breach, damages that are too remote or attenuated from the breach are typically not recoverable.

Establishing Date of Receipt of CO’s Final Decision for Triggering CDA Appeals Limitations Period

July 5, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

Once a contractor submits a claim to the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), the government is required to provide it a copy of the contracting officer’s final decision (COFD). The receipt of the COFD by the contractor is a key event in the lifecycle of a CDA claim because it triggers the beginning of the statute of limitation period to appeal the COFD at a Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Upon receipt of the COFD, the contractor has ninety (90) days to file an appeal at a BCA or twelve (12) months to file an appeal at the COFC. Since the statute of limitations is a condition on the waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity, adjudicative forums enforce it strictly as long as the government can establish, by evidence, the date on which the contractor received the COFD. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 33.211(b) obligates the contracting officer (CO) to furnish to the contractor a written copy of the COFD by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by any other method that generates evidence of receipt. Notably, the CO’s obligation to furnish a copy of the COFD to the contractor applies equally to all final decisions on claims, regardless of whether the contractor or the government initiates the claim.

Implications of a Lack of Notice Detailing Contractor Appeal Rights in a CO’s Final Decision

July 17, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

To file appeals under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), contractors are required to first submit their claims to the contracting officer (CO) for a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 33.211(a)(4)(v) requires COs to include in their final decisions a notice detailing the contractor’s rights to appeal the COFD at the Boards or the COFC. Such notice of contractor appeal rights should include language substantially similar to the following:

“This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose decision this appeal is taken.”

As detailed in the appeal rights notice, the contractor has ninety (90) days to appeal the COFD to an appropriate Board of Contract Appeals or up to twelve (12) months to appeal the decision at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The receipt of the COFD by the contractor triggers the beginning of the CDA appeals limitations period, within which the contractor must appeal the COFD at a Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Notably, in cases where the government issues a decision terminating a contract for default, the receipt of notification of the CO’s decision to terminate the contract begins the CDA appeals limitation period. Such a default termination notice must typically contain the contractor appeal rights language detailed above. However, the omission of the appeals rights language in the termination notice does not, by itself, negate an otherwise final decision. Additionally, the lack of such an appeal rights notice also does not stop the receipt of the COFD from triggering the CDA appeals limitation period – unless the contractor can demonstrate detrimental reliance or prejudice stemming from the omission of such notice.

CDA Jurisdiction Implications in Software Manufacturer Claims Based on EULA Incorporation in Federal Contracts

TILLIT LAW Federal Contract Claims Insights