Floorpro, Inc. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Navy awarded GM & W a contract for floor coating and GM & W subcontracted FloorPro to perform the work for $37,500.
- FloorPro completed the work on February 27, 2002 and invoiced GM & W; Navy initially acknowledged completion on March 8, 2002.
- Modification P00001 directed DFAS to pay GM & W and FloorPro via a two-party check mailed to FloorPro, rather than a direct payment to GM & W.
- DFAS later paid GM & W directly in July 2002, contrary to Modification P00001; Navy claimed it fulfilled its obligations, and FloorPro was told to seek payment from GM & W.
- FloorPro filed a claim with the Navy in December 2002; Navy ultimately informed FloorPro that the government did not have a contract with FloorPro.
- FloorPro pursued claims at the ASBCA, which was later reversed by the Federal Circuit in Winter v. FloorPro, leading FloorPro to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims in 2009 seeking damages for breach of Modification P00001.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. | FloorPro contends timely accrual within six years. | Six-year limit bars the claim as time-barred. | Court lacks jurisdiction; time-bar applies. |
| When the plaintiff's claim accrued for statute purposes. | Accrual occurred on October 5, 2004 when the government briefed the ASBCA. | Accrual occurred no later than August 9, 2002 when Navy repudiated the modification. | Accrual occurred by August 9, 2002; timely filing not shown. |
| Whether equitable tolling can save the claim. | Diligent pursuit at ASBCA tolled the period. | Section 2501 is absolute and non-tolling. | Equitable tolling does not apply. |
| Whether FloorPro was an intended third-party beneficiary to the modification. | FloorPro had enforceable rights under Modification P00001. | No jurisdiction or right to enforce under CDA; Tucker Act only. | FloorPro's rights under Modification P00001 are not enforceable; jurisdictional bar applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) (accrual and complete facts fix liability for tort-like contract claims)
- Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 536 U.S. 129 (2002) (claims for breach of contract accrue at time of breach)
- Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556 (Fed.Cir.1988) (breach of government contract accrues when payment is due but wrongfully withheld)
- Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d 1329 (Fed.Cir.2006) (accrual standard fixed by events that fix liability; objective test)
- Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (Fed.Cir.1988) (statute of limitations against the United States is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- Sand & Gravel, LLC v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (section 2501 time limit is absolute; not subject to equitable tolling)
- Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir.2008) (statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims is jurisdictional and not tollable)
- Winter v. FloorPro, Inc., 570 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009) (CDA lacks jurisdiction over third-party beneficiaries for breach of contract claims; Tucker Act broader)
- D & H Distributing Co. v. United States, 102 F.3d 542 (Fed.Cir.1996) (third-party beneficiaries may have rights in Court of Federal Claims)