Kafkaesque Levels of Bureaucratic Inertia and Equivocation Will Not Toll the CDA’s Statute of Limitations

The agency didn’t pay some of the contractor’s invoices due to a computer glitch. The contractor spent the next decade trying to get the agency to pay, but the agency made excuses and blew the contractor off. By the time the contractor submitted a claim, the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations had passed. 

Appeals of Platinum Service, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62199, 62200 

• Unpaid Invoices – The contractor had several contracts to provide moving services to the Army. The contractor performed for several years, and the Army paid the contractor’s invoices. But due to a computer glitch, the Army did not pay some of the contractor’s invoices. 

• Negotiations and Claim – The contractor spent years trying to recover payment from the Army. The Army gave the contractor the runaround, saying, for example, that it was working on payment and had elevated the issue. But after a decade of trying to resolve the issue, the contractor submitted a claim. The Army denied it, and the contractor appealed to ASBCA. 

• Equitable Tolling – The Army moved for summary judgment, arguing the contractor’s claims were barred by the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations. The contractor argued the board should equitably toll the statute of limitation. The board will toll the statute of limitations where a claim was induced by the government’s misconduct into allowing the claim deadline to pass. 

• Contractor Was Not Misled – The board declined to toll the statute of limitations. The board noted that the contractor’s patience in working with the Army was admirable. But the contractor was fully aware of its claims. There was no evidence the contractor had been misled into not submitting a claim. Rather, the contractor decided to negotiate with the government and was not diligent about complying with the claim deadline. 

The contractor is represented by Anthony J. Marchese and Carol L. O’Riordan of O’Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP. The government is represented by Dana J., Chase, Major Heather Martin, and Lieutenant Colonel Julie A. Glascott of the Army. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief