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 | 04.08.26
Cosmetics Under the Microscope: FDA’s Expanding Regulatory Reach Under MoCRA
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) marked the most significant expansion of FDA’s authority over cosmetics in 80 years — and the agency is putting that authority to work. From the launch of a new adverse event reporting tool to forthcoming rules on fragrance allergens and good manufacturing practices (GMP), FDA is reshaping the regulatory landscape for manufacturers, packers, and distributors of cosmetic and personal care products.
Client Alert | 11 min read | 04.08.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.07.26
Answering the Top Seven Questions About Pending Section 301 Deadlines




