top of page

Termination for Default is a Government Claim

  • Writer: R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
    R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
  • Aug 10, 2024
  • 2 min read

Termination for default is a government claim that the government bears the burden of proving.  Heffler Contracting Group, ASBCA No. 63565, Feb. 13, 2024.  Even though the government moved to dismiss the claim on procedural grounds (lack of jurisdiction), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal dismissed the government’s motion.


The Navy sought to dismiss Heffler’s appeal of a termination for default, suggesting that Heffler made an excusable delay claim in its complaint as a defense to the default without submitting a time extension claim to the contracting officer.  Such an extension claim must be submitted in order to raise excusable delay as an expense.  This matter was discussed in a previous blog.


However, the Board found the government’s motion to dismiss Hefler’s claim was “fundamentally flawed.”  Although the Contract Disputes Act required Heffler to initiate the appeal, a default is actually a government claim, and the government bears the burden of proving the default.  In order for the Board to possess jurisdiction over an appeal from a default, there need only be a final decision that terminates the contract, followed by a notice of appeal within 90 days of the contractor’s receipt of that final decision.  Heffler met those requirements, and the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter whether Heffler raises any affirmative defenses or not.  Because the Board has jurisdiction, the Navy must first carry its burden on the merits of proving the default.  The Board cited cases where the government has the initial burden to establish the default, and then the Board will consider whether it possesses jurisdiction to hear a contractor’s delay defenses.


Accordingly, the Navy’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was denied.

Takeaway.  The government has the burden of establishing that a default is proper, and then the contractor may present defenses.  The Board decides whether it possesses jurisdiction to hear any delay defenses of the contractor.

 

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