Carter v. United States, 16-1115

CSCI (Carter Safety Consultants, Inc.) had an Army Corps of Engineers contract for project scheduling support; estimated total cost in the contract was $619,144.40.
CSCI billed and was paid $509,601.80 for work performed through March 2013; CSCI later claimed the contract required a lump-sum/firm-fixed-price payment and sought the $109,542.60 difference.
The written contract included an erroneous reference to "firm-fixed-price/lump-sum" on one page but otherwise incorporated FAR provisions and terms consistent with an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) arrangement; CSCI submitted invoices and timesheets during performance.
The Corps issued a contracting officer’s final decision denying CSCI’s claim, concluding the contract was IDIQ and payment was limited to services actually performed and billed.
Carter (president/CEO of CSCI) filed suit pro se in the Court of Federal Claims seeking the disputed amount. Carter is not an attorney and did not file an appearance by counsel for CSCI, nor did she pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
The government moved to dismiss; the court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute because a corporation cannot proceed pro se and also for failure to pay the filing fee/respond to court’s show-cause order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether corporation may be represented pro se by its president	Carter argued CSCI can proceed through her as president (pro se)	Government argued corporations must be represented by licensed counsel in this court	Court held a corporation cannot proceed pro se; dismissal required under RCFC 83.1(a)(3) and RCFC 41(b)
Whether contract was firm-fixed-price/lump-sum vs IDIQ and thus whether CSCI is owed the estimate difference	Carter/CSCI argued contract language made it a firm-fixed-price lump-sum contract entitling CSCI to the estimated amount difference	Government argued contract terms, incorporated FAR clauses, course of dealing, and invoicing showed an IDIQ contract and payment only for work performed	Contracting officer had found and court accepted the contract was IDIQ; CSCI not entitled to the difference (agency decision sustained in reasoning)
Procedural compliance: failure to pay filing fee or move IFP	Carter did not pay fee or move to proceed IFP	Government relied on court rules to seek dismissal for noncompliance	Court additionally dismissed for failure to pay filing fee and for failure to respond to show-cause order

Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (corporations cannot proceed pro se)
Talasila, Inc. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1064 (no exceptions to rule requiring counsel for corporations in federal court)
Balbach v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 681 (dismissing pro se corporate-owner suit over government contract)
Erickson Air Crane Co. v. United States, 731 F.2d 810 (government consent to suit limited to parties in privity of contract)
Ogunniyi v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 525 (dismissing complaint where individual sought to litigate on behalf of corporation without counsel)