top of page

Not a "New Claim"

  • Writer: R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
    R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
  • Jul 8, 2023
  • 2 min read

A contractor’s resubmission of a previous claim for payment was not a “new claim,” as explained below, and was merely a repeat, which was not timely filed with the Board. BES Design/Build LLC v. General Services Admin., CBCA 7587, April 6, 2023. Accordingly the Board dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.


The General Services Administration (“GSA”) entered into a construction contract with BES to replace two exterior stairs at a courthouse in North Carolina. During performance of the contract, disputes arose relating to non-performance and non-payment.


The following sequence of events occurred:


· On February 24, 2021, BES submitted a certified claim to the CO for $37,800.

· On April 23, 2021, the CO issued a Contracting Officer’s final decision (“COFD”) denying the claim. The COFD included notice of appeal rights

· On June 8, 2022 (more than a year later) BES submitted a claim to the CO that was nearly identical to the February 24, 2021 claim. (The only difference was that BES lowered the claim amount because GSA made a payment between its first and second submission of the claim.)


The Board first noted that a contractor must file an appeal with the appropriate board within 90 days of receiving the COFD, otherwise the Board is precluded from considering it. BES asserted that the relevant claim was the one it submitted on June 8, 2022. However, when comparing the two documents, the board noted that even BES stated it was “resubmit[ing]” the claim for payment. If claims are based on a common or related set of operative facts and the court has to review the same or related evidence to make a decision, then only one claim exists. If the allegations and relief sough in each claim is substantially the same, the second claim is not a new claim.


The Board noted that BES’s claims arise from the same set of operative facts, the same contract and the same work. Each claim is for final payment after completion of the projects, thereby involving the same facts to evaluate the claim.


The Board concluded that the first COFD was issued to BES and received on April 23, 2021. Therefore the deadline for BES to file its appeal with the board was July 22, 2021, but the appeal was not filed until November 28, 2022—and accordingly was untimely. The second claim is not a new claim, the Board could not hear the appeal, and therefore it was dismissed.


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