1. “[W]hether a contract executed in violation of statutory restrictions on the obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds may be declared void from the start at the instance of the performing contractor, and, if so—” 2. “[W]hether compensation for benefits conferred upon the Government (pursuant to the voided contract) can be predicated on an implied-in-fact contract with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to unjust enrichment principles.”
1. “[W]e conclude that the agency’s failure to comply with the obligations of § 8118 did not render the Reduced Diameter Array contract void ab initio. Any failure by the Department of Defense in its internal compliance with § 8118 can not be invoked, particularly after full contract performance, either to strip the Navy of authority to have entered into the contract or to bar AT&T from presenting such claims, if any, that it may have.” 2. “The second certified question relates to remedy, but is based on the premise that the contract was void ab initio. Since that premise is incorrect, we do not reach the second certified question.”
