GROUNDBREAKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. United States, 1:22-cv-00578

Groundbreaker Development Corp. contracted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on April 20, 2020 to extend a water line at Northfield Brook Lake, CT.
The Corps issued a notice terminating the contract for default on May 26, 2021; Groundbreaker appealed to the Court of Federal Claims and filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2023.
Count I seeks a declaration that the default termination was improper (and should be converted to a termination for convenience) and also requests monetary relief (~$93,952) and reimbursement as if the termination were for convenience.
The government moved to dismiss the monetary portion of Count I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Groundbreaker never presented its monetary claim to the contracting officer as required by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).
Groundbreaker agreed that dismissal of the monetary claim was proper and asked for dismissal without prejudice so it may present the claim to the contracting officer.
The court granted dismissal without prejudice of the monetary claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and entered judgment for the government as to that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Groundbreaker's monetary damages claim absent prior presentment to the contracting officer under the CDA	Groundbreaker concedes the claim was not presented to the CO and requests dismissal without prejudice so it may present the claim (cannot present while suit pending)	Presentment to the contracting officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the CDA; because Groundbreaker did not present its monetary claim, the court lacks jurisdiction over that claim	Monetary claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; presentment to the CO is required before litigating monetary CDA claims

Sharman Co. v. United States, 2 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (distinguishes CO's default termination decision from separate monetary claims and requires CO decision for jurisdiction)
England v. Swanson Grp., 353 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (CDA presentment to contracting officer is prerequisite to suit)
Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (reinforces presentment requirement as prerequisite to Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (CDA requires valid claim presented to contracting officer prior to litigation)
Groundbreaker Dev. Corp. v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2023) (court's prior opinion dismissing monetary claims for lack of CDA presentment)
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 66 F.4th 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (confirms the presentment requirement remains jurisdictional)