In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. Servs. LLC, ASBCA, Nos. 62797, 62827 (May 7, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded approximately $4.9 million in delay-related breach damages to Konecranes Nuclear Equipment Services (Konecranes) due to the Navy’s breach of its implied duty to not interfere on a commercial-item contract for the provision of 25-ton general purpose portal cranes.Continue Reading An Uplifting Tale: Crane Supplier Recovers Breach Damages Because Commercial-Item Contract Did Not Incorporate Stop-Work Clause
Funny Money: Federal Circuit Gives Its Two Cents, Reverses Dismissal of Implied-In-Fact Contract Claim
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
Board Sustains Lockheed Martin’s $131 Million Cumulative Impact Claim
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program. The
Civilian Board Denies Department of Energy Motion to Dismiss
In the Crowell & Moring case Parsons Government Services, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 7822, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss concerning Parsons’ claim for additional incentive fee in connection with its performance operating a salt waste processing facility at DOE’s Savannah River Site. The underlying
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
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.
CBCA’s FY 2023 Report – Examining the Numbers
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2023, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies such as the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior
Board “Evicts” Government Termination: Contractor Awarded Expected Lost Profits for Improper Lease Termination
n Flatland Realty, LLC, ASBCA No. 63409, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking damages, plus interest, from an improper termination for default. In an uncommon result, the Board awarded lost profit expectancy damages because the government had improperly terminated the contract, which did not incorporate a termination for convenience clause.Continue Reading Board “Evicts” Government Termination: Contractor Awarded Expected Lost Profits for Improper Lease Termination
ASBCA’s FY 2023 Report – A Look at the Numbers
On November 1, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2023 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management
Sum-Thing Is Missing from the Contract Disputes Act: Federal Circuit Holds that “Sum Certain” Requirement is Non-Jurisdictional
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