GSA sent a claim letter to the contractor. The letter said the contractor owed “a minimum of $173,978.” The contractor didn’t appeal. A year later, GSA sent an updated letter, stating the contractor owed over $500,000. The contractor appealed from the second letter. GSA moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. GSA said the contractor should’ve appealed after the first letter. But CBCA found the appeal of the second letter timely. The first letter qualified the sum certain—i.e., “a minimum of”—and thus was not a valid claim. The contractor didn’t have to appeal the first letter.
Crystal Clear Maintenance v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7547
Background
The bankruptcy courthouse in Little Rock was suffered water damage. GSA thought a contractor, Crystal Clear Maintenance (CCM), was liable for the damage. GSA issued a claim letter to CCM in February 2021. The letter stated CCM was liable for “a minimum of $173,978.”
Over a year later, in October 2022, GAS issued an updated claim letter. The new letter stated CCM was liable for over $500,000 in damage. CCM appealed to the CBCA. GSA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. GSA alleged CCM should have appealed from the February 2021 claim. The appeal form the October 2022 letter was too late.
Analysis
The CBCA denied GSA’s motion. The February 2021 claim was not a valid because it did not contain a sum certain. In the February letter, GSA qualified the sum certain, stating CCM owed “a minimum of $173,978.” This qualification failed to put CCM on notice of the exact amount due. The February 2021 claim was not a valid. CCM was not obligated to appeal it. The appeal of the October 2022 letter, which stated a sum certain, was timely.
CCM is represented by Marques O. Peterson, Mary Buxton, and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The government is represented by Justin S. Hawkins of the General Services Administration.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
