Military Aircraft Parts
ASBCA No. 60139
| A.S.B.C.A. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- MAP timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's dismissal of ASBCA No. 60139 for lack of jurisdiction under the CDA.
- The Board had previously granted DLA Aviation's motion to dismiss because MAP's appeal was untimely, challenging DLA's default termination of two purchase orders (contracts 3228 and 3284) more than two years after the events.
- MAP asserted two new arguments in its reconsideration: (a) the COFDs were defective for failing to inform MAP of appeal rights; and (b) a mutual mistake allowed voiding the termination and COFDs ab initio.
- The COFDs in question advised MAP of its right to appeal to the ASBCA and provided a 90-day appeal period, referencing RCFC 83.1(a)(3) and offering the option to sue in the Court of Federal Claims within 12 months.
- The Board had previously held that COFDs are not required to inform contractors of the procedural rules of the Court of Federal Claims, and that MAP’s argument based on mutual mistake was outside the Board's jurisdiction given untimeliness.
- MAP’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 21, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COFDs were defective for not informing appeal rights | MAP contends COFDs deficient due to lack of appeal-right notice. | DLA argues COFDs satisfy CDA notice and do not need to spell out forum rules. | COFDs not defective; no requirement to convey forum procedural rules. |
| Whether mutual mistake permits voiding the termination | MAP asserts mutual mistake can void the termination and COFDs ab initio. | DLA maintains no equitable tolling or voiding effect due to untimely appeal. | Not reached on the merits due to lack of jurisdiction from untimely appeal. |
| Standards for reconsideration in the CDA context | MAP argues it has newly discovered arguments warranting reconsideration. | DLA maintains reconsideration requires new evidence or clear legal error; arguments are not compelling. | MAP’s motion denied for lack of compelling reason to modify the prior decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Access Personnel Services, Inc., ASBCA 59900, 16-1 BCA 36,407 (2016) (unknowledgeable contractors not required to investigate appeal rights)
- Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA 60739, 16-1 BCA 36,528 (2016) (contracting officers not required to advise on procedural rules of the Court of Federal Claims)
- Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA 55784, 09-2 BCA 34,171 (2009) (reconsideration standards and error-based review)
- Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA 58135, 16-1 BCA 36,504 (2016) (reconsideration standard; not an opportunity for reargument)
- ADT Construction Group, Inc., ASBCA 55358, 14-1 BCA 35,508 (2014) (requirements for reconsideration and evading jurisdiction)