• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Understanding a Release

Government contractors sometimes fail to recognize how difficult it is to “undo” a general release they have signed, typically at the end of their contract. (The government often forgets or ignores this as well and seeks to pursue a contractor after it has signed a mutual release—which is a specific recommendation that all contractors should insist upon when signing any release). A general release is a broad release that frees a party or parties from an obligation or duty, and normally includes all potential claims, excluding only specific claims that are “carved out” as not being covered by the release. See Blacks Law Dict. 10th Ed., 2014 Thomson Reuters. In a recent case, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) contractor failed to undo a release it had signed. Exceed Resources, Inc., ASBCA No. 61652, June 11, 2020.

Exceed received a five year indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for secretarial and administrative support. During a phase-in period a dispute arose between the parties over the number of “productive hours” and the application of health and welfare benefits to those hours. Exceed sought a change in contract terms, alleging a mistake had been discovered after award.

The NASA contracting officer advised Exceed that she would not alter the contract terms and requested that the contractor confirm that it was willing and able to perform the contract. Exceed responded and stated it could perform, but only if the mistake in bid was corrected. In its response, Exceed also stated that it “would be willing to entertain either a minimum amount for a termination for convenience or a no-cost termination for convenience.” To this, NASA responded that it would accept the offer of a no-cost convenience termination, and would pay the full amount of Exceed’s phase-in costs.

The parties signed a modification terminating the contract for convenience with the government agreeing to pay no costs except the phase-in costs. The modification stated:

“The contractor unconditionally waives any charges against the government because of the termination of the contract and, except as set forth below [phase in costs], releases the government from all obligations under the contract due to its termination. The Government agrees that all obligations under the contract are concluded.”

Two years later, Exceed submitted a 72 page claim seeking $2.6 million in breach of contract damages (including lost profits). NASA sought and obtained summary judgment from the Board without paying any breach costs.

First, the Board found that the release language was plain and ambiguous and there was no “carve out” that allowed Exceed to pursue a claim for lost profits.

Second, the Board considered whether there had been bad faith or duress—which could have been a basis for undoing the release. The Board noted that “to render a contract unenforceable for duress, a party must establish (1) that it involuntarily accepted the other party’s terms; (2) that circumstances permitted no other alternative; and (3) that such circumstances were the result of the other party’s coercive acts. N. Star Steel Co. v. United States, 477 F 3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, in this case Exceed did not involuntarily accept NASA’s terms, rather, Exceed proposed the no-cost termination—making it impossible to show duress in signing the release.

The Board entered judgment against Exceed’s claim for lost profits, finding there had been no bad faith and because Exceed executed a valid release, which would have precluded such a recovery in any event.

Takeaways: (1) Always ensure you understand any release you sign. If you have potential claims, be sure to set them forth in the release and “carve them out” as still unresolved.

(2) When a contractor signs a release, it is advisable to see a bilateral (government and contractor) release of the other party. This prevents the government from later making claims against the contractor, except for those permitted by law.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Informal Agency Protests: A Reminder

Formal agency protests must be submitted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 33.103, which sets out specific rules, procedures and requirements. There is a simpler way to protest

Typed Name is Acceptable for Contract Disputes Act

A recent decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) held that as long as a mark (such as a typed signature) purporting to act as a signature may be traced back to the individua

Constructive Notice of Contracting Actions

“Constructive” is defined as “legally imputed; existing by virtue of legal fiction though not existing in fact.” Blacks Law Dict. (Tenth Ed. 2014). Several types of constructive actions occur in gove

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman