Summary
This document is an Order of Partial Dismissal issued by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in a government contract dispute. The Board granted the government's motion to dismiss five of the appellant's six claims due to lack of jurisdiction, as those claims were never submitted to the contracting officer for a final decision. Only the original claim for $215,000 related to letter of instructions and differing site conditions remains before the Board.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board had jurisdiction over five monetary claims raised for the first time in the complaint and not previously submitted to the contracting officer for decision.
- Whether the five additional claims were merely new legal theories based on the same operative facts as the claim decided by the contracting officer or instead were entirely new and separate claims.
Holdings
- The Board lacks jurisdiction over claims that were not first submitted to the contracting officer for decision under the Contract Disputes Act.
- The claims seeking payment for equipment, contract balances, and option years were new and separate claims, rather than new theories based on the same operative facts; therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction over them.
Key quotations
“The scope of the appeal, and our jurisdiction are dependent upon the claim submitted for final decision by the Contracting Officer.” (2)
“We lack jurisdiction over claims raised for the first time on appeal, in a complaint or otherwise.” (2)
“The additional claims presented here do not constitute new theories based upon the same operative facts but are entirely new and separate claims.” (2)
Factual background
A Best Services Inc. appealed a contracting officer's final decision denying a $215,000 claim involving reimbursement for work performed under Letters of Instructions and a differing site condition concerning grass height. In its Board complaint, the appellant also sought $350,000 for contract equipment, $167,000 for a 2022 contract balance, and three separate $421,000 payments for later contract or option years. Those five additional monetary claims had not been submitted to the contracting officer for decision.
Procedural history
The appellant appealed a December 19, 2023 contracting officer's final decision denying its claim for $215,000 in reimbursement for work performed under Letters of Instructions and a differing site condition relating to grass height. The notice of appeal was filed on January 24, 2024, and the complaint was filed on February 12, 2024. The complaint added five claims seeking payment for equipment, contract balances, and option-year amounts that had not been submitted to the contracting officer. The Board partially dismissed those five claims while leaving the $215,000 claim pending under the existing schedule.
Remand instructions
None. The five additional claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the $215,000 claim that was the subject of the contracting officer's final decision remained before the Board under the existing schedule.