The contractor missed a deadline to respond to the government’s claim. Four days later, the government moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The CBCA summarily denied the motion. Missing a filing deadline does not warrant a dismissal for failure to prosecute.
MLU Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 8002
- Claims and Appeals – The contractor submitted a monetary claim. The agency denied it and asserted its own monetary claims against the contractor. The contractor appealed to the CBCA. The agency answered the complaint and submitted an addendum asserting its claim. The board ordered the contractor to respond to the agency’s addendum.
- Failure to Prosecute – The contractor missed the deadline to respond to the agency’s claim. Four days later, the agency moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute.
- Board Denies Agency’s Motion – The board found the agency’s motion bordered on frivolous. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh remedy that should not be invoked for a single instance of failure to comply with a deadline. Indeed, the board found the contractor should not be sanctioned at all. Rather, the board decided the contractor’s failure to file an answer simply amounted to a general denial of the government’s claims.
The contractor is represented by Lochlin B. Samples and Allison Geewax of Smith Currie, & Hancock LLP. The government is represented by Andrew Michael Thabo Hickey of FEMA.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief