The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals served up a recent decision “medium rare” for a small business in New Mexico -- in Papa Franks v. Dep’t of Justice, (CBCA 2779), the Board denied relief to Papa Franks, a small burrito and sandwich shop in Albuquerque. Papa Franks entered into a contract that upon verbal request from the United States Marshal, it would provide meals to federal inmates…
A recent food service industry decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals provides some guidance regarding how a Contracting Officer should deal with potential mistakes in the bid process.
In Red Gold, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agriculture, CBCA 2639 (July 6, 2012), the Board held that a unilateral mistake by the contractor was excusable and awarded $253,608. In connection with a…
As previously reported here, the Court of Federal Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals have held that the 6-year statute of limitations for bringing a claim applies equally to both the Government and its contractors. In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844C & 10-741C (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2012), the Court, once again, applied the Contract Disputes Act (CDA)…
In two recent decisions – The Boeing Company, ASBCA No. 57490 (Jan. 6, 2012) and Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 09-306C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 2, 2012) –contractors successfully argued that the Government’s claims were barred by the 6-year statute of limitations under the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA). The CDA provides that “each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to…
In Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, No. 2011-1007 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that when a contractor alleges the existence of an express or implied-in-fact contract with the government, that allegation is enough for a Board of Contract Appeals to have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). The Board should…
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled on a variety of legal issues in Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5086, -5087 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) involving a Miller Act surety’s claims against the United States. The Federal Circuit’s ruling highlights (i) the need to comply with Contract Disputes Act requirements; (ii) the limited…