In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Government can assert laches as an affirmative defense to a Contract Disputes Act claim. In a case of first impression, Lockheed Martin argued that the affirmative defense of
On June 14, we presented a webinar titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Requests for Equitable Adjustment and Contract Disputes Act Claims.” The webinar featured some of the most common questions we encounter in the field regarding CDA claims and REAs, as well as a discussion of procedural, substantive, and business considerations that go into the
The Prompt Payment Act requires the government to pay an interest penalty when it fails to make a payment by the required payment date. But, for CDA statute of limitations purposes, when does that penalty claim accrue? This issue was addressed in the recent Public Warehousing Co. (May 2, 2016) decision, where the Board
In L-3 Commc’ns (Apr. 25, 2016), the ASBCA dismissed as moot the appeals of two final decisions that the contractor had argued were barred by the CDA statute of limitations when the cognizant ACOs rescinded the final decisions after the contractor had appealed. The board held that, although the COs had not yet
The past twelve months have seen major developments on cost and pricing issues relevant to the “top of the ledger” – as well as the bottom line. On May 26, 2016, at 11:00 am -12:00 pm, Crowell & Moring attorneys Terry Albertson, Steve McBrady, Rob Burton, and Skye Mathieson will highlight some of the most
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
As we discussed during Crowell & Moring’s webinar last week Top Headlines, Headaches, and Developments for Government Contractors to Watch in 2015, the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations has been a hot topic for both contractor and Government claims over the past several years.
Until recently, the case law at the Federal Circuit, the Boards, and the Court of Federal Claims was unanimous that the statute of limitations was jurisdictional. That meant that claims that accrued more than six years prior to their assertion would be null and void – contractors and the Government could not waive or toll the statutory deadline, and the tribunals had no jurisdiction to hear cases based on untimely claims.
Continue Reading Claims Practice Bulletin: What the Newly Interpreted “Non-Jurisdictional” CDA Statute of Limitations Means for Contractors
Several recent Board decisions have turned on issues that serve as a reminder to contracting parties that a critical element of litigating CDA claims is adherence to statutory requirements and the Board’s rules. In Appeal of WorleyParsons, the ASBCA dismissed the government’s claim for alleged CAS violations as a nullity under the CDA, for two fundamental reasons: (1) it could not hear an appeal concerning a contract with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (CPA), because the CPA was not an “executive agency,” and (2) the Appellant named in the claim was a member of the JV that signed the contract, but not the JV itself.
The Board’s position on Contracts with the CPA relied on prior precedent (the MAC case) holding that the CPA was an international organization, and not an Executive Agency of the Government (which is a condition of the Board’s jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act). Thus, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Continue Reading Recent ASBCA Decisions Offer Refresher on Adherence to Board and CDA Requirements
The Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, sets forth certain prerequisites for the exercise of jurisdiction over claims. Among these prerequisites is a six-year statute of limitations, which is applicable to Government and contractor claims alike. With few exceptions, claims submitted more than six years after “accrual” are not valid and cognizable under the CDA.
The obvious question is, when does the clock start – i.e., when does a claim “accrue”? Although the CDA does not define the term accrual, the ASBCA and Court of Federal Claims rely on the FAR 33.201 definition, which describes accrual as “the date when all events, which fix the alleged liability of either the Government or the contractor and permit the assertion of the claim, were known or should have been known.” As you may have guessed by the phrase “known or should have known,” determining when a claim accrues can raise a number of subjective and factual questions (for example, who must know? And when “should” that person have known?). Over the past several years, there have been a number of SOL decisions attempting to clarify this standard in the context of contractor and Government claims (see previous discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Continue Reading Applicable Statute of Limitations for CAS Violations Comes into Focus
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals reminded us last week how unforgiving the Board’s timeliness rules can be for unsuspecting contractors. In Schunck v. General Services Administration, January 31, 2013, CBCA No. 3079, the Board dismissed the appellant’s case because it was not timely filed under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §