110 Fed. Cl. 251
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation sues the United States for unpaid indirect contract support costs under ISDEAA contracts dating 1993–1999.
- The ISDEAA provides funding for two categories: Secretarial/operating funds and contract support costs (CSC), the latter being the focus of Bristol Bay's claim.
- AFAs set annual CSC amounts, but payment is contingent on availability of appropriations and may vary year-to-year.
- Bristol Bay alleges the IHS calculated indirect CSC using the direct cost base and negotiated rate, and that the government should reprogram funds to pay the full CSC as required by law and contract.
- Bristol Bay filed contracting officer’s decisions in 2005 and 2006; the government denied some years and Bristol Bay claimed others were denied or deemed denied.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court denied the motion and allowed further briefing, including on equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CDA six-year statute of limitations bars 1997–1998 claims | Bristol Bay argues tolling should save claims. | United States contends limitations bar claims accrued by 1997–1998. | Claims not time-barred at this stage; tolling issue requires further briefing. |
| Whether Bristol Bay is entitled to additional indirect CSC beyond contract amounts | ISDEAA full funding mandates payment of full indirect CSC as statutory and contractual duty. | Cherokee Nation/Samish hold no independent CSC entitlement beyond AFAs. | Plaintiff’s claim survives 12(b)(6) as a plausible statutory and contractual obligation. |
| Whether 1995 claim is barred by res judicata | Alaska suit lacked identity of claims; settlement reserved rights not expressly waived. | Settlement agreement and prior suit bar current claims. | Not resolved at 12(b)(6); requires further proceedings to determine preclusion scope. |
| Scope of documents review on 12(b)(6) motion | Complaint relies on AFAs and ISDEAA documents; court should consider them. | Can rely on incorporated contracts and public records without converting to summary judgment. | Court may consider central contract documents and public records without converting to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Nation v. United States, 543 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2005) (ISDEAA contracts binding as procurement contracts; full funding duties remain)
- Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (equitable tolling may apply to CDA limitations; class-action tolling not applicable)
- Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (U.S. 2012) (ISDEAA full funding mandate; government must pay full CSC to tribes)
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class-action tolling principle)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (presumption of equitable tolling governs statutory limitations)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 614 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (ISDEAA full funding obligations discussed; tolling considerations cited)