Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Government Contracts Advisor

Industry insight & analysis

open menu close menu

Government Contracts Advisor

  • Home
  • About us

ASBCA Decision Finds that Contractor’s CDA Claim is Not Time Barred; Serves as Useful Teaching Tool

By Dentons Government Contracts Group
July 3, 2014
  • Claims and Terminations
  • Government Contracts
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

This holiday weekend presents a good time to reflect on the recent uptick in jurisdictional decisions before the Court of Federal Claims and the Boards of Contract Appeals related to the Contract Disputes Act’s (CDA) six-year statute of limitations.  Most recently, we reported about the ASBCA’s decision in Laguna Constr. Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 58569 (May 29, 2014), which held that the government’s $3.8 million claim was time-barred by CDA’s statute of limitations.  There the ASCBA found that the government’s claim accrued when DCAA issued an audit report more than six years prior to the final decision being issued.  Now, in Zomford Company, ASBCA No. 59065 (June 10, 2014), the government argues that the contractor’s claim should be time-barred.  As will be discussed below, this decision serves as a teaching tool with respect to the CDA statute of limitations and document preservation issues.

Here the contractor performed additional work pursuant to a contract modification issued on January 5, 2007.  On January 21, 2007, the contacting officer emailed the contractor a notice terminating the contract and stating that “[n]o payments will be made” thereunder.  (Apparently the contractor never received the termination notice.)  Then in a March 9, 2007 email, the contractor informed the contracting officer that it had completed all work under the contract and attached an invoice.  Another contracting officer replied, indicating that “payment has been sent out, please allow 30 days [i.e., around April 9, 2007] for payment to post.”  Because no payment was made, the contractor submitted a claim on February 5, 2013 to recover for the work it performed.

In its motion to dismiss, the government argued that the contractor’s claim accrued on or about January 21, 2007 – when the termination notice was sent to the contractor.  Judge James disagreed, finding that although that “date of accrual was plausible,” there was no evidence that the contractor ever received the termination notice.  Instead, Judge James found that April 9, 2007 was likely the “earliest date” the claim would have accrued – 30 days after the parties exchanged emails about the work being complete and the date by which the government indicated that the contractor should receive payment.  Thus, the contractor’s claim was submitted two months prior to the end of the six-year statute of limitations period.

This case is important for a variety of reasons:

  • While many of the recent CDA statute of limitations cases involve contractors raising the jurisdictional issue, it is critical to remember that the government is equally entitled to raise this defense.  Contractors must always be cognizant of six-year window it has to file a CDA claim, and set-up internal procedures and controls to track potential CDA claims and the six-year limitations period.
  • The government’s statute of limitations defense failed because it could not prove that the contractor received the termination notice sent by email.  In a day and age when email is one of the most prevalent forms of communication, this decision reminds us that proof of receipt still can be an issue at times.  It is critical to include read receipts with important emails, and to consider sending a duplicate hardcopy via mail (with a return receipt requested).   It is also important to follow-up with your contracting party to ensure that important documents are received.
  • This case teaches about the importance of having records to support factual assertions.  The contractor prevailed on the jurisdictional dispute mostly because the government could not demonstrate that the contractor received the termination notice and the contractor had records demonstrating when the claim likely accrued.  Of course, the impact arising from a failure to maintain records is a two-way street.  Contractors must ensure that they have adequate procedures and controls in place to preserve important records.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Dentons Government Contracts Group

About Dentons Government Contracts Group

Operating at the intersection of law, business and government, the Dentons’ Government Contracts practice delivers creative, flexible and effective business and litigation solutions and strategies, relying not only on our breadth and depth of experience, but also on our proven history of succeeding in the most complex and difficult circumstances.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Costs, Pricing, Business Systems and Appropriations Law
  • Government Contracts

2016 Financial Forum Series

By Dentons Government Contracts Group
  • Government Contracts
  • Health Care, Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical and Public Health Preparedness

COVID-19 – Addressing the Risks of Disease Delays and Disruptions Under Federal Contracts

By Dentons Government Contracts Group, Steven Masiello, Joe Martinez, Gale Monahan, and Dentons Government Contracts Group
  • Government Contracts

Government Contracts Legislative and Regulatory Update – May

By Steven Masiello, Joe Martinez, and Chris Fetzer

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site