Wait Too Long and You Might Miss Sum-Thing: ASBCA Again Underscores that Failure to Timely Raise Sum-Certain Defense Can Result in Forfeiture Under New Federal Circuit Precedent
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.31.24
On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in ECC International Constructors, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59586, 59643, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals concluded that, by waiting until after a hearing on the merits and six years after the appeal was filed, the government forfeited its right to challenge the contractor’s satisfaction of the FAR’s sum-certain requirement for Contract Disputes Act claims.
As we previously discussed, the decision of the Federal Circuit in ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army reversed longstanding precedent that a claim must state a “sum certain” for a board or court to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. The underlying appeal dated back to 2014, but the government chose to wait until 2020, after earlier negotiations and a nine-day merits hearing, to challenge the Board’s jurisdiction. Pointing to decades of caselaw, the ASBCA dismissed the contractor’s claim for lack of jurisdiction because the claim had multiple sub-claims and the contractor had not stated a separate sum certain for each sub-claim. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, holding consistent with recent Supreme Court precedent that the sum-certain requirement is not jurisdictional but, rather, is a claims processing rule that is subject to forfeiture or waiver. On remand, the Board evaluated whether the government forfeited the right to raise its sum-certain argument and held that waiting six years and until after the hearing resulted in forfeiture. Notably, the Board rejected the government’s argument that an exchange during the hearing regarding the sum-certain issue could prevent forfeiture.
This is the second decision out of the ASBCA (following JE Dunn) to apply the Federal Circuit’s ECCI holding. We will continue to monitor additional developments as the Board considers when, and under what circumstances, a party forfeits its right to allege that the other party failed to state a sum certain.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
Executive Order Tries to Thwart “Onerous” AI State Regulation, Calls for National Framework
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.17.25
The new EU Bioeconomy Strategy: a regulatory framework in transition



