Do Not Pass Go: Board Dismisses Claim on Jurisdictional Grounds
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.20.17
In Elham Ahmadi Construction Company (ASBCA No. 61031), the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider a contractor’s appeal arising from a termination for default and the contractor’s related claim to recover payment for work that was performed and accepted by the Government prior to the termination. First, the Board held that while “a termination for default is both a government claim and contracting officer’s final decision that can be directly appealed to the Board,” a contractor must appeal such termination within the statutorily-mandated 90 days. Because the contractor did not contest the termination until six years after the termination, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the termination’s propriety. Second, the Board concluded that the contractor’s claim – which requested “about $71500 Dollars” – did not constitute a claim because it lacked the required sum certain. The Board explained that qualifiers such as “about” or “at least” make a sum uncertain and deprive the Board of jurisdiction, a reminder to contractors to observe the jurisdictional prerequisites in the Contract Disputes Act and the FAR, or risk forfeiting otherwise viable claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings




