The contractor filed an appeal more than 90 days after the final decision. The contractor argued it was misled because the final decision did not contain appeal language. But the ASBCA found the contractor had not detrimentally relied on the omission. Thus, the missing appeal language did not halt the 90-day appeal clock.
Appeal of US Pan American Solutions, LLC, ASBCA No. 63743
- Termination – The contractor didn’t deliver pool coolers on time. The agency terminated for cause. But the agency reinstated the contract and gave the contractor extra time. The contractor still didn’t deliver the coolers. The agency terminated again. The termination notice did not contain the CDA’s appeal language.
- Appeal – The CDA requires contractors to file an appeal within 90 days of a final decision. The contractor did not file an appeal within 90 days. The contractor argued it had been misled by omission of the appeal language.
- Detrimental Reliance - The ASBCA noted that omission of appeal language only stops the 90-day clock if the contractor can show it detrimentally relied on the omission. Here the contractor could not show detrimental reliance. The agency had informed the contractor of the 90-day period after initial termination. Moreover, the contractor had filed previous appeals with the board. This indicated the contractor was aware of the 90-day deadline.
The contractor is represented by Jorge Delpino. The government is represented by Craig D. Jensen, Sharon H. Sachs, and Lance P. Fortney of the Navy.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief