Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

Photo of Monica DiFonzo SterlingPhoto of Meredith Parnell

It’s not every day that a contractor recovers nearly four times the value of its initial contract, especially when there’s a potential conflict of interest in the mix – but that is exactly what happened in Appeal of Phoenix Data Solution.  On June 21, 2018, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded Phoenix Data Solutions LLC, formerly known as Aetna Government Health Plans (AGHP), over $11 million in claimed settlement costs plus interest arising from the Tricare Management Activity’s (TMA) termination for convenience and subsequent deemed denial of AGHP’s claim related to performance under a regional TRICARE managed care support contract.

Continue Reading ASBCA Awards Contractor Over $11 Million in Settlement Costs After Termination for Convenience, Despite Possible Conflict of Interest

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Charles Baek

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY16 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, DLA, DCMA, CIA, NASA, other Defense agencies, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This year’s report once again reflects the Board’s impressive success at resolving matters via alternative dispute resolution.  In total, 93% of ADRs concluded in FY16 – including binding ADR, non-binding ADR, and ADR of undocketed appeals – were successfully resolved.  The report also reflects a slight uptick in successful appeals at the Board, noting that the appellant prevailed in 57% the appeals decided in the merits (up from 53% in FY15).

Photo of Steve McBrady

On October 20, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY 2015 Report of Transactions and Proceedings.  The report provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, DLA, DCMA, other Defense agencies, CIA, NASA, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.  This year’s report reflects that the Appellant prevailed in just over half of the appeals decided in the merits (53%).  It also indicates that, as usual, the Board had a high success rate in resolving matters via ADR. Of the cases that went through non-binding ADR, 93% were resolved successfully.

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye Mathieson

In Appeals of LRV Environmental, Inc., the ASBCA considered the issue of whether or not the Government’s “reconsideration” of a contracting officer’s final decision acts to re-set the 90-day clock for jurisdictional purposes under the CDA.  In LRV, the CO issued a final decision, and subsequently reconsidered a portion of that decision, leading the Board to conclude that “the decision was not truly final” and that “[w]hile there are no procedures set forth in the CDA for reconsideration of a decision, it is a well established principle that an administrative agency may reconsider its own decisions,” so the contractor’s 90-day appeal window as to the reconsidered claim runs from the latter decision.

 

(This post is part of the Claims series on the Government Contracts Legal Forum – have a question or an idea for a future topic? E-mail us at smcbrady@crowell.com and smathieson@crowell.com.)