Strong Structural Steel, Ltd v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims | 2026
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Strong Structural Steel manufactured bollard panels for a border wall project as a subcontractor to prime contractor Southern Border Constructors. When the government halted construction, thousands of panels were left at Strong Structural's facility with no direction on removal or storage. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the government's directives went to the prime contractor, not the subcontractor, and any claims must flow through the prime contractor under the Severin doctrine.
Key Takeaways
- •Subcontractors cannot sue the government directly for damages caused by government actions directed at the prime contractor—claims must go through the prime contractor first
- •Include clear flow-down language in your subcontract requiring the prime to pass through all government directives, changes, and relief claims to protect your rights
- •Document all government communications, even if addressed to the prime contractor, because they may affect your work and you'll need evidence for claims through the prime
USACE's directives were addressed to SBC and impacted Strong Structural only indirectly, through SBC.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue the government directly if the government's actions hurt my subcontracting work?
No. If the government's actions were directed at your prime contractor, you cannot sue the government directly. Instead, you must pursue your claim through the prime contractor under the Severin doctrine. Make sure your subcontract requires the prime to flow down all government directives and claims rights to you.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.