Claims

Subscribe to Claims
Photo of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Tyler Piper

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) recently issued notable reminders to contractors regarding its jurisdictional authority and the importance of timely filing claims.  The Board explained in DSME Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA 63878 (July 30, 2024), that it may retain jurisdiction over a dispute even when a different forum is listed in the contract.  In Platinum Services., Inc., ASBCA No. 63878 (Aug. 1, 2024), the Board instructed contractors to be mindful of the CDA’s statute of limitations period, even when seeking to amicably resolve a dispute.Continue Reading Know Your Rights: SBCA Issues Two Important Reminders to Contractors

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Tyler Piper

In Portland Mint v. United States, Case No. 22-2154, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the Portland Mint’s claim that the government breached an implied-in-fact contract to pay the Portland Mint for coins tendered under the government’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program.  The Court’s decision is a reminder of the jurisdictional importance in pleading a contract as implied-in-fact rather than implied-in-law. Continue Reading Funny Money: Federal Circuit Gives Its Two Cents, Reverses Dismissal of Implied-In-Fact Contract Claim

Photo of Erin RankinPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Zariah Altman

On December 20, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a prime contractor’s pandemic-related claims filed on behalf of its subcontractors.  The Board rejected the government’s arguments that the claims failed to state any claims for relief that could be granted, were barred by the affirmative defense of sovereign acts, and failed to provide separate sums certain for purported sub-claims.   Continue Reading ASBCA Allows Subcontractors’ Pandemic-Related Claims to Move Forward

Photo of Rob SneckenbergPhoto of Stephanie CrawfordPhoto of Issac Schabes

On September 6, 2023, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Class Deviation removing the FAR 52.204-7 requirement that a contractor maintain its System for Award Management (SAM) registration for the entire time from proposal submission until contract award, without any lapse.  As background, FAR 52.204-7 has since 2018 provided that “[a]n Offeror is required…

Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of M.Yuan Zhou

This week’s episode covers a Federal Circuit decision about jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act, a claim for additional costs relating to COVID related delays, and a False Claims Act settlement touching on cybersecurity and self-disclosure, and is hosted by Peter Eyre and Yuan Zhou. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast…

Photo of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Amanda McDowellPhoto of Zariah Altman

On August 25, 2023, in ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 21-1169, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“the Court” or “COFC”) barred ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC (“ECC”) from asserting claims that should have been asserted before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) citing the doctrine of claim preclusion. 

At the ASBCA, ECC had appealed a termination for default and sought time extensions and damages due to excusable delay.  The Board dismissed ECC’s appeal, finding that the Contracting Officer (“CO”) acted reasonably in terminating the contract and finding that ECC failed to present its excusable delay claims to the CO as required under M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  ECC requested a stay to allow it time to present its delay claims to the CO, but the Board denied the request stating that it was untimely and futile because ECC’s own expert testified that less than half of the delays were excusable, which meant that the CO’s termination decision would still be justified.  ECC appealed the ASBCA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the Board’s decision was affirmed.Continue Reading Strike When the Iron is Hot: Court of Federal Claims Found a Contractor’s Defense to a Termination Was Precluded by its Failure to Previously Assert Those Claims in Litigation Before the ASBCA

Photo of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Tyler Piper

In StructSure Projects, Inc., ASBCA No. 62927, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking recovery for increased costs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.  The underlying task order involved design and alteration services for existing medical facilities at Travis Air Force Base, and included a specific Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the provision of temporary phasing facilities that the Government could use while the construction work was ongoing.  When the pandemic began in March 2020, StructSure and its subcontractors had to stop their on-site construction work for 44 days because the Government had limited base access for contractors deemed to be not mission-essential.  StructSure later sought schedule and monetary relief, but the Government only granted schedule extensions under the Default clause.Continue Reading COVID Costs Claim Succeeds: Contractor Entitled to Recover for Performance of Contract Despite Base Closure

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Rob SneckenbergPhoto of Erin RankinPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John Nakoneczny

In ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army, No. 2021-2323 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned longstanding precedent by holding that the requirement to state a “sum certain” in a claim submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is not a jurisdictional requirement.  The Court based its decision on recent Supreme Court guidance to “treat a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.”  The Court parsed the CDA and found that Congress never used the words “sum certain,” evidencing that Congress did not intend the requirement to be jurisdictional.  This is important because jurisdictional requirements can be raised at any time—even years after the claim was filed and a full hearing on the merits was held—and result in dismissal of the case.  The Court explained that the “sum certain” is “nonetheless a mandatory rule that claimants must follow.” Continue Reading Sum-Thing Is Missing from the Contract Disputes Act: Federal Circuit Holds that “Sum Certain” Requirement is Non-Jurisdictional

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Eric HerendeenPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Amanda McDowellPhoto of J. Chris Haile

On May 15, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) in J&J Maintenance, Inc., d/b/a J&J Worldwide Services, ASBCA No. 63013 issued an instructive analysis of its jurisdiction to hear monetary and nonmonetary claims.  Partially granting a government motion to dismiss, the ASBCA explained that, if a contractor does not seek monetary relief in its claim to the contracting officer (“CO”), then the contractor cannot seek monetary relief on appeal to the Board.  Addressing the contractor’s claim for contract interpretation, however, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss and held that, where a contractor can reasonably articulate “significant consequences” of its claim other than the recovery of money, the fact that the claim may also have a financial impact on the parties does not strip the Board of jurisdiction.  Continue Reading Money Talks, But So Do Other Impacts: ASBCA Underscores that a Claim with Possible Financial Impacts Is Not Fundamentally a Monetary Claim Unless It Has No Other Significant Consequences

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Christian CurranPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of William B. O'ReillyPhoto of Issac SchabesPhoto of David H. Favre

On April 26, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Crawford v. United States (a C&M case), holding that a U.S. Army combat veteran is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees arising from a dispute related to obtaining medical retirement benefits earned during his service.  In the underlying dispute on remand to the Army Board…