1. “The CFC improperly denied ACLR’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim as to ACLR’s plan year 2007 duplicate payment audit.”
2. “The CFC’s application of a constructive termination for convenience on ACLR’s plan year 2007 and 2010 duplicate payment audit was reversible error.”
3. “The CFC’s grant of summary judgment to the Government on ACLR’s assertion that the Government breached its of duty of good faith and fair dealing was reversible error.”
4. “The CFC’s finding that ACLR was not entitled to compensation for a percentage of the contract price was reversible error.”
5. “The CFC’s denial of ACLR’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the preparation, presentation, and pursuit of settlement claim costs related to the settlement claim was reversible error.”
6. “The CFC’s grant of summary judgment to the Government on ACLR’s standard record keeping system was reversible error.”
1. “[W]e agree with the Court of Federal Claims that the government is entitled to summary judgment, as CMS committed no breach, either of contract or of its duty of good faith and fair dealing.”
2. “There is no error in the trial court’s conclusion that CMS’ terminations relative to the 2007 and 2010 audits constituted retroactive, constructive terminations for convenience, consistent with the FAR 52.212-4(l) clause incorporated into the pertinent task order and, thereby, into the Part D RAC Contract.”
3. “The trial court correctly concluded that while ACLR ‘had performed some portion of the work under the con- tract,’ its contract price ‘was to be paid based on a contingency fee – a portion of [ACLR’s] recovery of any improper payments.’”
4. “While ACLR’s legal fees and other costs associated with preparation, presentation, and pursuit of settlement became potentially recoverable after the March 2020 constructive termination, the Court of Federal Claims properly rejected these as well, because ACLR failed to segregate its costs and show that what it was seeking for this period were reasonable charges.”
5. “Contrary to ACLR’s characterization, the Court of Federal Claims did not hold that a ‘standard record-keeping system’ must be ‘specific’ or ‘overly sophisticated.’ Nor in affirming, do we.”
