The agency moved to dismiss the contractor’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the contractor failed to convert its request for an equitable adjustment (REA) into a Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim. But ASBCA found that the document labeled as an REA functioned as a CDA claim.
Appeal of Mindseeker, Inc., ASBCA No. 63197
- REA and Appeal – The contractor submitted requests for equitable adjustment performance disruptions. The agency denied the REAs. The agency opined that the contractor had not established the disruptions occurred. The contractor appealed to the ASBCA. The agency moved to dismiss, arguing, that the language in the contractor’s submission indicated it was an REA rather than a ‘claim’ submitted under the CDA. Thus, the board lacked jurisdiction.
- Downtime Losses Claim – A contractor files a claim when its submission gives “a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim.” Here, the contractor asserted two bases of relief. The board found one of these arguments — for downtime losses — qualified as a claim. While the contractor’s submission was labeled as an REA, the argument for downtime losses asserted a sum certain and explained the basis and amount sought. That was enough to qualify as a claim.
- Modifying Contract “Claim” – On the other hand, the contractor’s second issue seeking a contract modification did not qualify as a claim. Although the contractor sought to modify a unit price by a certain amount, the submission did not specify the quantity of units. Thus, it failed to meet the sum certain requirement.
- Other Claim Criteria– The board also found that the certification criteria for a CDA claim had been satisfied. Additionally, the contractor functionally requested a final decision for a CDA claim through multiple correspondences. The agency argued it was never put on notice that the REA was converting to a CDA. The Board disagreed. The agency put itself on notice when it required the contractor to sign the CDA certification.
The contractor was represented by Stephanie D. Wilson, Rachael C. Haley, and Charles L. Bonani of Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. The government was represented by Dana J. Chase, Heather M. Martin, Joshua B. Fix, and Harry M. Parrent III of the Army.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
