Appeal from a denied claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CDA requires that an appeal of a claim decision must be brought within 12 months. Here, the claimant appealed 13 months after its attorney received notice of claims decision. The claimant argued that the 12 month rule should be relaxed when a claimant’s attorney receives notice of the decision. The court, however, declined to relax the rule, noting that the 12 months time period is strictly construed. The appeal clock begins to run when an agent of the contractor receives notice of the decision.
Sandstone Associates leased property to the U.S. Postal Service. Sandstone submitted a claim to the USPS for reimbursement of property taxes. The USPS denied the claim. It sent notice of the denial to Sandstone’s attorney in May of 2018. The notice informed Sandstone that any appeal of the decision had be brought in 12 months. Sandstone then appealed the denial of its claim to the COFC in June 2019. The government moved to dismiss, alleging that the appeal was late and thus the COFC lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The court reasoned that the Contract Disputes Act provides that appeals from a Contracting Officer’s decision must be made within 12 months. This provision is jurisdictional, and it is strictly construed. The focus of a CDA timeliness inquiry is on the date of receipt by the contractor, not the date the contractor received actual notice of the agency decision.
Here, no one disputed that Sandstone had filed its appeal 13 months after its attorney received notice of the claim decision. Nevertheless, Sandstone argued that the 12 month should be relaxed for good cause. The good cause in this case, Sandstone argued, was that its attorney rather than Sandstone itself received the claims decision.
The court did not find this compelling. Citing numerous cases in which the time to appeal a claims decision began when some agent of the contractor—an employee, an attorney—received notice of the decision, the court declined to relax the 12 month rule.
Sandstone also argued that the 12 month deadline should only apply to its claims involving an express contract, but should not apply to its claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meriut. But the court reasoned that claims that arise from the same operative facts will be deemed to be the same claims as those submitted to the contracting officer. What’s more, Sandstone’s claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meriut were not even recoverable in the COFC.
Sandstone is represented by Ted Del Guerico, III of MacManimon, Scotland & Bauman, LLC. The government is represented by Elizabeth M. Hosford and John M. McAdams of the U.S. Department of Justice.
