For whatever reason, there’s been a spate of claims cases lately (see e.g., here and here) in which one party has attacked the sufficiency of the other party’s pleadings. This case is another in that vein. And in each of these cases, the board has declined to find the attacked pleading deficient. Again, the boards only require notice pleading. If a party is alleging breach, identifying the contract and the general actions that constitute breach is enough. The boards do not require a claimant to allege detailed facts.
Appeals of Wilwood Engineering, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62773, 62774
Background
Wilwood had a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide brake kit pads. To perform the contract, Wilwood developed a new pad. DLA, however, did not like the new pad and demanded that Wilwood stop shipping it. Wilwood submitted a claim for $1.6 million, alleging the government changed the contract. DLA denied the claim, and Wilwood appealed to the ASBCA.
Legal Analysis
On appeal, the government moved to dismiss, in part, for failure to state a claim. Wilwood had alleged the government breached by wrongfully rejecting the brake pads. DLA asserted this failed to state a claim because it did not state the “actual basis” the government invoked in rejecting the brake pads.
The board rejected DLA’s position. To overcome a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief. Wilwood’s complaint satisfied this standard. It identified a contract and the actions that constitute breach. The fact that the complaint did not recite the exact grounds for the government’s rejection was irrelevant. The board’s rules only require notice pleading that provides the other party with fair notice of the claim.
The government also moved to dismiss counts of Wilwood’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In those counts, Wilwood alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and a breach of the implied duty to cooperate. The government claimed the board lacked jurisdiction because these theories had not been presented in the underlying claim.
But for the most part, the board found that Wilwood had not presented new operative facts on appeal. The facts stated in the claim basically reflected the facts underlying the counts for breach of the duty of good faith and failure to cooperate. The board, however, did find that it lacked jurisdiction over a portion of the breach of the duty of good faith claim—specifically, an allegation that the government refused to participate in ADR—because those facts had not been presented to the contracting officer.
Wilwood is represented by Kipp A. Landis of Kipp A. Landis Attorney at Law. The government is represented by Deniel K. Poling, Colleen Loughran, and Christine T. Roark of the Defense Logistics Agency.
