Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Supreme Court Holds that Federal Law Does Not Preempt State Tort Claims When the Contractor’s Own Negligence Causes Injuries • You Can’t Blame the Government for Weather You Could Have Predicted • COFC Holds that USAID Contractors Properly Pleaded Breach of Contract by Improper Mass Termination in Bad Faith/Abuse of Discretion • Bid Protests in Maine • Army Awards $2.7B Contract for Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon

Contractor Didn’t Communicate With Agency for Six Years, Claims Are Now Barred by Statute of Limitations; Appeals of Afghan Premier Logistics, ASBCA Nos, 62938, 62939, 62940

Government’s motion for summary judgment on contractor’s appeal is granted. The government contended the contractor’s claims were barred by the CDA’s statute of limitations. The board agreed. The contractor’s claims had accrued more than six years before, during performance of the contract. The claims were untimely, and the contractor had not presented evidence to show the statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled.

Background

The Army awarded Afghan Premier Logistics (APL) a contract for trucking services in Afghanistan. The Army issued several task orders under the contract. Over the course of the contract APL disputed deductions from invoices returned from the Army. In 2014, as the contract was ending, APL emailed the Army with a list of outstanding claims. Despite these claims, in October 2014, APL signed a memorandum certifying that the contract had been paid in full and releasing all claims against the government.

In October 2020, after more than six years had passed, APL submitted three claims to the Army for unpaid invoices and a constructive change. The Army denied the claims. APL appealed to the ASBCA.

Legal Analysis

  • APL’s Claims Were Barred by the Statute of Limitations - A claim must be asserted within six years from the date it accrued. Here, APL’s claims for unpaid invoices accrued more than six year before, when the Army had failed to pay the invoices. The claim for a constructive change had also accrued during performance when the Army increased the amount of transit time for missions. APL knew or should have known of its claims in 2014. 
  • Claims Were Not Equitably Tolled –  APL attempted to argue that the statute of limitation had been equitably tolled. But the doctrine of equitable tolling only applies when some extraordinary circumstances stand in the way of timely filing. APL had not made this showing. The parties had not communicated for six years, and APL had failed to present evidence showing it had been diligently pursuing its rights during that period.

APL is represented by Michael D. Maloney of Williams Mullen. The government is represented by Scott N. Flesch, Zachary F. Jacobson, Major Aaron McCartney, James D. Stephens, Major Jill B. Wiley, and Lieutenant Bryan R. Williamson.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.