1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Do Not Pass Go: Board Dismisses Claim on Jurisdictional Grounds

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

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. ...