top of page

Contracting Officer Cannot Issue a "Final Decision" to Create a Claim

  • Writer: R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
    R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
  • Dec 23, 2022
  • 2 min read

A recent decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal which was based on a Contracting Officer’s “final decision” on a Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”), because the requesting document was not a claim. Gulf Tech Construction LLC v. Dept of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7447, August 12, 2022. Even though the Contracting Officer styled his decision as a “final decision,” and notified Gulf Tech of its appeal rights, the underlying document did not qualify as a “claim” under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), and the CBCA therefore had no jurisdiction.

The agency issued a contract to Gulf Tech for construction work at a VA medical center, but certain delays and disputes arose between the parties. Gulf Tech submitted an REA with the intent and expectation to resolve matters with the contracting officer. The REA was for $234,673.41. Gulf Tech did not explicitly request a final decision from the contracting officer, did not submit a written certification with its REA as required by the CDA, and did not even sign the REA.


Several months later, the VA contracting officer issued what he called the “final decision of the contracting officer” on what Gulf Tech had submitted. He denied the request, except for $46,401.66. In the decision, he also provided Gulf Tech its appeal rights as set forth in FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v). Gulf Tech Appealed.


The Board concluded that Gulf Tech did not submit a CDA claim (which gives rise to the Board’s jurisdiction when there is a final decision, either directly or indirectly if “deemed denied”) because:

· Gulf Tech made no request, explicitly or implicitly, for a Board decision

· The REA was for more than $100,000, and was not certified, as the CDA required, and thus could not constitute a CDA claim.


The CBCA noted that even though the contracting officer issued what he called a “final decision” in response to Gulf Tech’s REA, this does not create jurisdiction. If no claim was made which meets the CDA requirements, there is no basis for Board jurisdiction of an appeal. The CBCA did not possess jurisdiction on this appeal, and dismissed it. The Board noted that Gulf Tech could submit to the contracting officer a certified claim at some time in the future that meets CDA requirements, and appeal a final decision if it chooses.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Invalid "Final Decision"

Does the absence of a required claim render a Contracting Officer’s (“CO”) “final” decision invalid?.  The answer is simple, such a...

 
 
 

Comments


The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page