Based on assumptions...
I'm tempted to side with Kubicek. Now, I have never dealt with the US government business wise but I have a few experiences with working for the Dutch government while representing a (small) private IT company.
Lets just say that I'm not too surprised to read about experiences where the government doesn't hold up their end of an agreement. I've somewhat experienced the same (where you literally had to wait for months before you finally got payment, an investment which is extremely hard on small private firms) and that made me decide 'never again'.
In case you don't understand: you make costs in order to help out certain customers, investments if you will. But you also expect to get paid, also to cover said expenses. So by letting bills go (way) overdue you could argue that the client (the government here) is now forcing you to lend them money. And that can be a very rough situation for a private company. Not to mention unfair: if you loan money with a bank you get to pay a lot of interest after all.
The thing is: I read much more stories describing such experiences with regards to doing work for the government. Granted: Dutch government in my case. But if there's one thing I learned thanks to the Internet it's that some governments aren't all that different in the way they act and behave towards citizens.
So with that in mind I think this is a classic display of power abuse on the end of the US government.
Something easily proven too: all Kubicek has to do is show the contracts. Assuming that those are all in order (I assume as much, otherwise I doubt he'd hire a lawyer) I think he should have a solid case. And I also hope he'll sue them for slander and power abuse as well!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
