• Dick Lieberman,Consultant

Don't Make the Mistake of Thinking a Claim Must Include All Costs Incurred to be Valid


Duncan Aviation sought $1.6 million for “over and above” costs incurred in connection with a Navy contract to overhaul landing gear systems for T-34 and T-44 aircraft. Over and above work were those items that were “ ‘over and above’ the requirements of the contract and for which the contractor recommended corrective action” In other words, these costs are classic requests for equitable adjustment (“REA”), and Duncan eventually submitted them as a $1.6 million certified claim to the Navy. However, Duncan did not include any labor costs or markups or fees on the parts or labor for installing the additional parts.

The Navy refused to issue a final decision on Duncan’s claim, asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the claim certification was invalid (the Board held the certification was valid) and also arguing that the claim was invalid because Duncan did not seek recovery of all its costs.

The Board did short work on the Navy’s “failure to seek all costs in its claim argument.” It simply stated this argument was “without merit [because there is no] requirement in the Contract Disputes Act or the FAR that a contractor seek all possible costs in a claim in order for this Board to exercise jurisdiction. The Board noted the following statement from Duncan:

The Navy asserts that Duncan’s claim is not “proper” because Duncan could have requested additional costs in its claim but did not do so. Duncan, in its REA of June 1, 2009... did not seek reimbursement of direct labor costs, indirect costs or profit. Duncan decided to only request an equitable adjustment for direct material costs because the vast majority of the costs to which Duncan is entitled are direct material costs. The Navy would have the Board impose a requirement that a claim is only “proper” if it seeks all costs to which the company is entitled in an equitable adjustment. In effect, the Navy is asserting that since Duncan did not ask for reimbursement for all the costs that it was entitled to recover, it is not entitled to recover anything.

TIPS: You may ask for all, or only a part of your equitable adjustment claim, and the Board will consider that part. All other requirements of the Contract Disputes Act (specificity, submission requirements, and certification) continue to apply.


Recent Posts

See All

Mistakes in Certifying Your Claim

In a recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals case, Development Alternatives, Inc. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., CBCA 5942 et. al, September 27, 2018, the Board considered an appeal of a claim for $1.9 m

Use Caution with Rubber Stamps

Is a rubber stamped signature of the President of a company on a release of claims valid? The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, under the facts in Penna Group, LLC v. Dept of Justice, CBCA 6155, Se

This website was developed by Richard Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements(FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR.   See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now