In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. Continue Reading CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email
You Need to Calm Down: Board Swift-ly Denies Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Filed Just Days After Party Misses Deadline
In MLU Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA No. 8002, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which the agency filed just four days after MLU failed to timely submit one of its initial pleadings.
This case
Just Trust Me on This: Allegation of Contract’s Existence Is Sufficient to Establish Jurisdiction Under Contract Disputes Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Avue Technologies Corp. v. Department of Health and Human Services that an appellant’s non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the government via an end-user license agreement (EULA) incorporated into another contractor’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) agreement was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).Continue Reading Just Trust Me on This: Allegation of Contract’s Existence Is Sufficient to Establish Jurisdiction Under Contract Disputes Act
Who CARES? The ASBCA Might.
In Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63634 (Jan. 11, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) confirmed that a contractor’s properly asserted claim for relief under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and denied the Air Force’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.Continue Reading Who CARES? The ASBCA Might.
Contractor Discovers the High Cost of Misrepresenting a Material Fact: Summary Judgment Denied in Part
On December 19, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied summary judgment in part to Vanderlande Industries (Vanderlande), holding that a reasonable jury could find that Vanderlande negligently misrepresented the viability of subcontractor Ludvik Electric Co.’s (Ludvik) pass-through claims during the parties’ settlement negotiations over the claims. Continue Reading Contractor Discovers the High Cost of Misrepresenting a Material Fact: Summary Judgment Denied in Part
Federal Circuit Reverses COFC and Awards Attorneys’ Fees to Combat Disabled Veteran
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
When is the Price of a Fixed-Price Contract Not Fixed?
In Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States (Aug. 17, 2022), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) granted the contractor’s request for summary judgment, awarding $195,890 in legal fees the contractor incurred to successfully defend against a False Claims Act suit brought by a whistleblower. The court held that the cost principles in Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 31.2 applied to the contractor’s fixed-price task order, and the contractor’s legal fees were allowable and payable under the contract. This is the second time that the COFC addressed the contractor’s entitlement to legal fees, having previously held that the contractor could recover a portion of them under the Spearin doctrine (which we reported on here). The Federal Circuit later vacated that award on jurisdictional grounds (reported on here) and remanded the case to the COFC. Continue Reading When is the Price of a Fixed-Price Contract Not Fixed?
Federal Circuit Affirms Board Decision on Pandemic-Related Claim
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ (CBCA) decision denying a pandemic-related claim in Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Secretary of State, CBCA No. 5683, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,589. Pernix involved a firm-fixed-price construction contract in Sierra Leone that was impacted by an Ebola outbreak several months into the project. The Department of State (DOS) declined to provide direction or to issue a suspension of work order, and instead advised Pernix to make its own business decisions regarding performance and employee safety. Pernix chose to demobilize its workforce and, later, to remobilize with the addition of its own on-site medical facility and services. Pernix then submitted a claim for the increased medical, safety, and demobilization and remobilization costs. DOS granted an adjustment to the schedule for the Ebola-related delays under the contract’s excusable delay clause, but denied Pernix’s monetary claim.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms Board Decision on Pandemic-Related Claim
Time is Money: Contractor’s Claims for Payment Dismissed
In URS Federal Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 62475 (March 23, 2021), the Board dismissed a contractor’s three-count complaint for lack of jurisdiction on one count and for failure to state a claim on the other two. The Board first addressed Count III, which alleged that the Government had breached the implied duty of
Show Me the Money? When a Sum Approximate Counts as a Sum Certain
In Creative Management Services, LLC, dba MC-2 v. U.S. (Feb. 26, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing a contractor’s appeal of the government’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim as untimely, holding that the contractor appealed more than 12 months after receiving a contracting officer’s (CO) final decision. On appeal, the contractor alleged that the final decision was not a valid claim because it did not state a “sum certain” as required by the CDA, and this deficiency meant that the 12-month appeal period had not started to run.
The contractor was awarded a General Services Administration (GSA) task order to provide marketing and logistical support for an annual GSA conference, and was required to keep the revenue it collected for the conference in a trust account. When GSA canceled the conference in the fourth year and asked the contractor to return all remaining money in the trust account, the contractor refused and submitted a termination for convenience proposal to GSA. GSA subsequently issued two letters to the contractor demanding an accounting of the trust account and all money that remained in it. The CO then issued a final decision on the contractor’s termination proposal and on GSA’s claim to the remaining funds in the trust account, without providing a dollar amount. The contractor filed suit three years after the final decision was issued, challenging the government’s claim to the trust account funds.Continue Reading Show Me the Money? When a Sum Approximate Counts as a Sum Certain