Contracting Officer's Final Decision Not Afforded RES Judicata Status
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
In Roxco, Ltd. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2004), the COFC, among other things, rejected the Air Force's argument that Roxco's equitable adjustment claims, which were submitted more than a year after the Contracting Officer's default termination decision, should be barred through the application of res judicata, even if, as the Air Force asserted, those claims could have been raised as defenses to the default termination. The COFC reasoned that an extension of res judicata to contracting officers' final decisions would contradict the Contract Disputes Act's six-year statutory time limit for filing claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.10.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.26
Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Race- and Sex-Based Contracting Program
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.06.26
