United States: "Mistake" In Government Contracts

Everyone knows that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But what about ignorance of the facts? In Woodies Holdings, L.L.C. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims recently rejected a Government defense against a contractor claim and an affirmative counter-claim based on the Government's alleged unilateral mistake of fact. In this post we'll take a look at that decision and discuss the particular challenges posed by an argument that one party's mistaken understanding of facts should lead a court to alter the unambiguous terms of the parties' contract. We'll also note a special procedural hurdle one must clear before being able to raise this argument in an appeal covered by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA).

The Facts

The General Services Administration (GSA) leases office space for use by federal agencies. In the 1990s, the GSA initiated a program to create an annual inventory of available properties, with the space available and lease pricing offered to be refreshed by property owners from year to year. This system allowed the GSA rapidly to meet ordering agencies' needs by matching their office space requirements and budget constraints to properties available in the inventory. Because any particular lease might last for several years, the leases provided for price adjustments to account for increases or decreases in the property owner's local property tax assessment: the Government was required to make (or entitled to receive) adjustment payments based upon the percentage of the building's square footage occupied by the Government. The leases provided: "The percent of the building occupied by the Government, for purposes of tax adjustments, will be established during negotiations." The correct Government occupancy percentage in leases with a particular property owner is at the heart of the Government's mistake argument in this case.

In 2000, a property owner, Woodies Holdings, L.L.C. (Woodies), submitted an offer to rent the GSA a property it owned in downtown Washington, D.C. The building had both office space and retail space available. In its offer, Woodies filled in a standard GSA form detailing the building's space as: 316,420 square feet of rentable office space, an additional 163,609 square feet of retail space, and 480,029 total building square feet. No lease resulted from this offer. The following year, Woodies submitted its annual refresher offer to the GSA and provided the year's available general purpose office space and retail space. Again, no lease resulted from the offer.

In 2002, Woodies tried again, offering the same building for lease and filling out the GSA's standard form: 372,990 square feet of available office space, 139,240 square feet of retail space, and 512,230 total building square feet. (The slight variations in building size across these offers was attributable to changing measurements and changes to the space itself.) This time, the GSA chose Woodies for a lease of 48,410 square feet of office space for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. The GSA's negotiator filled out the lease forms to indicate the building (rather than the available office space) measured 372,990 square feet, and the Government occupancy was 12.98% (48,410 divided by 372,990). The GSA negotiator apparently copied the wrong number from Woodies' correct offer documents. Although the GSA had access to "numerous supporting documents originating from Woodies," as well as publicly available real estate records, no one at the GSA reviewed or verified whether the square footage figures used by the GSA were accurate.

By using a smaller denominator in the Government occupancy fraction, the Government's share of responsibility for any tax increases thus was larger than it would have been with a larger denominator. When Woodies' negotiator saw the GSA's use of 372,990 square feet as the denominator for the occupancy percentage, he assumed this was the negotiated occupancy percentage for tax purposes and a fair number, given the differences between office space and retail space, and he did not object.

Over the years, the GSA executed additional leases with Woodies. In each one, the GSA calculated the Government occupancy percentage based on a total building size of 372,990 square feet, which the GSA personnel apparently copied and pasted from the first lease without attempting to verify the figure. In 2009, the GSA changed over to an automated system, which did not allow Woodies to submit copies of documents as it previously had done. When the system asked Woodies for total building size, Woodies' negotiator entered 372,990 square feet based upon the parties' prior practice, and followed up with a phone call to the GSA to explain that he used that figure (rather than total building size) for tax purposes based upon the figures to which the parties had agreed in the previous four leases. The GSA issued a new lease with the usual figure, which Woodies took as confirmation that GSA concurred that was the correct approach. In reality, it appears no one at the GSA attempted to verify any of the numbers and simply used the square footage GSA always had used.

From 2008 to 2012, the GSA made tax adjustment payments to Woodies based upon the Government occupancy percentages incorporated into the leases. In 2014, with Woodies' claims for tax adjustments pending, a new GSA lease specialist noticed the discrepancy between the building square footage listed on the leases and the figure reported in other documents. The specialist took the initiative to request independent real estate records, which confirmed that the building's total size was 504,221 square feet, which he ensured would be reflected in all new leases. Based upon the specialist's calculation that the Government had been paying more than it should have paid for the space it occupied, the GSA denied Woodies' pending tax adjustment claims for lease years after 2012. Woodies took the denied claims to the Court of Federal Claims.

Legal Analysis

The court turned first to Woodies' claims, as the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to damages. The court quickly found that the leases as written unambiguously entitled Woodies to tax adjustment payments at the percentages stated in the leases—approximately $3.5 million, plus interest. The court then considered whether the Government had an affirmative defense capable of defeating Woodies' established claims.

The Government asserted a defense of unilateral mistake of fact, asking the court to reform the contracts—that is, judicially to adjust the occupancy percentage in each lease at issue in Woodies' claims (and thus the quantum of the claims) to the figure the Government argued was the one that should have appeared in the leases, based upon the total building square footage. The Government also asserted a counter-claim based on the same argument, asking the Court to order Woodies to repay what the Government claimed had been past overpayments.

The court noted that contract reformation is an extraordinary remedy, is rarely available when the alleged mistake is unilateral, and must in all events be supported by clear and convincing evidence—a standard substantially more onerous than preponderance of the evidence, which is the usual standard for establishing a defense:

Reformation of a written contract is an extraordinary remedy. It is generally only available on a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the intent of the parties is not expressed by the written instrument, which is to say that the parties both made the same mistake of fact. Reformation will not be granted, unless the proof of mistake be of the clearest and most satisfactory character. Where, as here, the mistake alleged is not mutual, the law requires the unmistaken party to have known, or have had reason to know, of the other party's mistake. Otherwise, reformation on the basis that only one party made a mistake is unavailable.

Thus, defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that GSA 1) made a mistake, not having borne the risk of that mistake, as to a basic assumption on which it made the contract; 2) that its mistake had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performance; and 3) either the result is unconscionable, or Woodies knew or had reason to know of it.

At *11 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The court found a unilateral mistake of fact (for each lease except the one in which Woodies called the GSA to explain the figure used for total building size). Based upon the testimony of GSA personnel who tried to recall the formation of these leases years before, the GSA did not intend to use a total building space measurement that excluded the building's retail space. And the court agreed this mistake affecting price involved a "basic assumption" of the contract and had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performance.

The court also found, however, that the GSA bore the risk of that mistake. A party may bear the risk of a mistake either because the contract itself places the risk on that party, or because the mistaken party failed to take reasonable steps that would have revealed the mistake before contract formation. The court noted the GSA negotiator's "cavalier and careless approach to his work, compounded by the equally careless oversight of his superiors, which in turn was facilitated by the agency's compartmentalization of tasks regarding lease development and oversight, as well as its constantly evolving forms and terminology." The court expressed irritation at the testimony of numerous agency employees who testified that it "was not in their job description" to verify the accuracy of figures, despite having the means to do so without much effort. The court noted only one employee took the initiative years later to investigate the issue after "easily" spotting the longstanding inconsistency in the building size descriptions. The court found this was "precisely the sort of 'conscious ignorance,' or gross negligence, that the law will not countenance when a party seeks to avoid its contractual obligations by claiming it was mistaken."

Although the Government's mistake defense was already dead, the court then turned to the third and final prong of the test, finding the Government had failed to meet its burden of proving "by clear and convincing evidence" that Woodies knew or should have known of the Government's mistake. Although the court thought the question was a close one, it accepted Woodies' explanation that, although Woodies clearly knew the leases did not reflect the correct total size of its building, it reasonably believed the GSA intended to use the total office space ("the only space the lease was concerned with") as the denominator of the occupancy fraction for tax purposes. The court noted that Woodies had raised precisely that issue with the GSA prior to the execution of two leases—which was further indication that Woodies reasonably thought there had been a meeting of the minds.


The main takeaway from this case is that it is very hard to prevail on any claim or defense of mistake of fact, and prevailing on a theory of unilateral mistake is harder still. That difficulty arises not only from having to meet each of the three prongs of the test for unilateral mistake discussed above, but also from the fact that the standard of proof is "clear and convincing evidence." This is a standard more onerous than the ordinary "preponderance of the evidence" standard that applies to most defenses.

This case is also a good reminder that parties should undertake reasonable due diligence before signing a contract to be sure they understand the facts that are material assumptions of the bargain. If a party fails to do so, it may be found to bear the risk of a mistake (as the GSA did here), and a court will enforce the terms of the contract as written.

Finally, there is another consideration, which the court here did not address but that could further complicate asserting a mistake defense in a Government contract dispute. Under the Federal Circuit's controversial precedent in Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010), a party asserting a defense to a contract claim must first assert its defense as a separate CDA claim if the defense essentially seeks "an adjustment of contract terms." 609 F.3d at 1331. This rule applies to the Government as much as to contractors. See Raytheon Co. v. United States, 747 F.3d 1342, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying Maropakis to bar a Government defense where the defense sought an adjustment of contract terms but was not previously the subject of a contracting officer's final decision). At least one post-Maropakis decision of the Court of Federal Claims has rejected a mistake defense on jurisdictional grounds because the contractor failed first to submit a CDA claim to the contracting officer, asserting the mistake and seeking reformation of the contract terms. TPL Inc. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 434, 444 (2014) (dismissing mutual-mistake defense for lack of jurisdiction under Maropakis).

Here, it appears the contracting officer's 2015 final decision denying Woodies' tax adjustment claims expressly raised the mistake defense, thus satisfying Maropakis. (It is a separate question whether that assertion was timely under the CDA's six-year statute of limitations in light of the court's finding the Government reasonably should have discovered the mistake as early as the execution of the first lease in 2003.) Absent a prior assertion of the mistake in a contractor claim (if the contractor is alleging a mistake) or a contracting officer's final decision (if the Government is alleging it), however, an affirmative claim or a defense of mistake in the midst of litigation of a CDA-covered contract is vulnerable to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Maropakis.

In short, although the doctrine of mistake is alive and well, it is a very challenging argument to make, and invoking it as a defense in a CDA-covered dispute may entail going through the additional procedural hoops imposed by Maropakis.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions