1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |YOLO: CBCA Finds that a Contractor Cannot Revive Its Expired Appeal Rights by Resubmitting a Claim

YOLO: CBCA Finds that a Contractor Cannot Revive Its Expired Appeal Rights by Resubmitting a Claim

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.21.23

On April 6, 2023, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), in BES Design/Build, LLC, CBCA 7585, dismissed a contractor’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the appeal untimely, and underscoring that a contractor cannot reset the 90-day appeal window by resubmitting its original claim.

On February 24, 2021, BES Design/Build, LLC (BES) submitted a certified claim for non-payment under a task order to replace two exterior stairs at a courthouse.  The contracting officer denied the claim in a final decision (COFD) on April 23, 2021.  BES did not appeal that denial.  More than a year later, on June 8, 2022, BES submitted a nearly identical certified claim.  The contracting officer responded on August 22, 2022, stating that a COFD had already been issued on the matter.  On November 18, 2022, BES appealed what it cited as the August 22, 2022 COFD to the CBCA.  The GSA then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, citing BES’s appeal as untimely.

The CBCA granted the GSA’s motion to dismiss, noting that there are three jurisdictional prerequisites for it to hear a contractor’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA): (1) the contractor’s submission of a claim to the contracting officer; (2) the issuance of a COFD or occurrence of a deemed denial; and (3) a timely appeal.  Under the CDA, a contractor has 90 days from the date of receiving a COFD to appeal the decision to the relevant agency board.  BES argued that, because the agency responded to its second claim on August 22, 2022, it should be entitled to 90 days from that date to appeal the agency’s denial.  The CBCA disagreed, explaining that claims based on a common or related set of operative facts will be considered the same claim for the purposes of an appeal if “a court will have to review the same or related evidence to make its decision.”  Here, because the contractor’s allegations and the relief sought in each claim were substantially the same, the CBCA found both of BES’s submissions were for the same claim, and the relevant date for calculating the 90-day appeal window was the issuance of the first COFD, on April 23, 2021.

This decision underscores the importance of timely appealing a claim upon the receipt of a COFD, as a contractor cannot revive its appeal rights by simply re-submitting an old claim it failed to timely appeal. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights