Motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied, where the contractor did not appeal a contracting officer’s final decision or request an interpretation of contract terms, but did seek other relief as permitted by the FAR.
Greenland Contractors I/S appealed correspondence issued by the Air Force concerning the Inspection of Services Clause in its base maintenance contract with the agency.
Greenland alleged the Air Force misinterpreted the language in the contract indicating that the government would furnish depot level maintenance work. Greenland also alleged that the government’s failure to complete the work required by the contract was a violation of its obligations under the agreement. Significantly, Greenland asserted that the Air Force’s decision to impose related requirements constituted a claim appealable to the ASBCA under the Contract Disputes Act.
The Air Force moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The agency argued that its correspondence regarding the Inspection of Services Clause was not properly before the board because its correspondence was related to contract administration and because the government had not asserted a claim. The Air Force argued further that Greenland was to accomplish all depot level repairs required on certain diesel units and that it properly directed the contractor to immediately initiate all actions to carry out its responsibilities. Additionally, the agency defended its rejection of Greenland’s work for failure to perform the depot level repairs and reduction of the contract price for work required and not performed.
The board denied the motion, holding that that the Air Force’s correspondence directing Greenland to immediately complete work was a non-monetary claim, though not a claim for contract interpretation, as Greenland asserted. In determining jurisdiction, the board found irrelevant the fact that the correspondence was not captioned as a contracting officer’s final decision and did not satisfy the requirements for a final decision. The board also rejected the agency’s argument that Greenland had not presented a claim because the contractor did not request an adjustment, explaining that Greenland did seek other relief, as permitted by the FAR.
Finally, the board explained that while the typical procedure would be for Greenland to file a request for equitable adjustment for increased compensation before filing a claim, the fact that Greenland did not take such measures did not deprive it of jurisdiction.
Greenland Contractors I/S is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, and Anayansi Rodriguez of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The government is represented by Jeffrey P. Hildebrant and Kyle E. Gilbertson of the Air Force.