Claude Mayo Construction Company, Inc. v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 616
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- GSA awarded Claude Mayo Construction a $732,003 renovation contract for a federal office in Syracuse; work began after a Final Notice to Proceed in November 2013 and the contract was later modified and increased to $811,046.
- Disputes arose over schedules, responses to modification requests (PS02/PS03), and completion timing; GSA issued a Notice to Cure, a Show Cause notice, a Stop Work Order, and ultimately assessed liquidated damages.
- GSA issued a Notice of Termination for Default on June 12, 2014, stating the CO’s letter was the final decision and advising the contractor of appeal rights under the Disputes clause/CDA.
- Claude Mayo appealed the termination to the CO on May 18, 2015; the CO denied relief on July 22, 2015 (final decision), and Claude Mayo sued in the Court of Federal Claims on October 27, 2015 alleging: (1) improper default termination; (2) breach of contract; (3) tortious interference with other contracts; and (4) unjust enrichment.
- Government moved to dismiss counts 2–4 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Claude Mayo failed to present a proper CDA claim to the CO (no claim for breach in writing with a sum certain) and that counts 3 and 4 lie outside Tucker Act jurisdiction; Claude Mayo did not oppose dismissal of counts 3 and 4 and submitted a supplemental claim to the CO while this litigation was pending.
- The Court granted the government’s motion: dismissed counts 2–4 without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and stayed Count 1 for 60 days to allow the CO to decide Claude Mayo’s supplemental claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over Claude Mayo’s breach-of-contract claim under the Tucker Act/CDA (i.e., did Claude Mayo present a valid claim to the CO) | May 18, 2015 appeal letter gave the CO adequate notice and requested payment for outstanding applications and lost profits; thus it presented a CDA claim | May 18 letter was only an appeal of termination for default, did not assert breach as the basis, and did not state a sum certain required by the CDA | Held: No. The May 18 letter did not present a written CDA claim for breach with a sum certain; Court lacks jurisdiction over count 2 (dismissed without prejudice) |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the tortious-interference claim | Tortious-interference arises from GSA’s improper termination and is part of contractor’s relief | Tort claims are outside Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: No jurisdiction; count 3 dismissed (plaintiff did not oppose dismissal) |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the unjust-enrichment claim (implied-in-law) | Equitable relief/quantum for services rendered supports recovery against the government | Unjust-enrichment is an implied-in-law claim and not within the Tucker Act waiver (only express or implied-in-fact contracts) | Held: No jurisdiction; count 4 dismissed (plaintiff did not oppose dismissal) |
| Whether the case should be stayed to permit the CO to rule on a supplemental claim submitted while the lawsuit was pending | If the Court finds the May 18 letter insufficient, permit the CO to issue a final decision on the April 25, 2016 supplemental claim so plaintiff can exhaust remedies | Stay will allow exhaustion and preserve plaintiff’s ability to seek relief in this Court later | Held: Stay granted for 60 days to allow CO decision on the supplemental claim; parties to file a joint status report thereafter |
Key Cases Cited
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (pleading and jurisdictional standard in Rule 12(b)(1) context)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (court may consider evidence extrinsic to the pleadings when jurisdiction is disputed)
- Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by preponderance)
- England v. The Swanson Grp., Inc., 353 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (CDA exhaustion required for appeals of CO decisions)
- M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (both a valid claim and a CO final decision are prerequisites to jurisdiction)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (Tucker Act excludes tort claims)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. United States, 654 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Tucker Act covers express and implied-in-fact contracts but not implied-in-law/unjust enrichment)
- Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claim must give CO adequate notice of basis and amount)