Military Aircraft Parts
ASBCA No. 60139
| A.S.B.C.A. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- DLA awarded Military Aircraft Parts (MAP) three small purchase orders (contracts 3228, 3284, 4479) for aircraft parts; contract 4479 was for $16,225.
- Contracts 3228 and 3284 included FAR 52.249-8 (Default); contract 4479 did not include that default clause.
- DLA issued a contracting officer final decision (COFD) dated 1 April 2013 terminating contract 4479 for default; a unilateral modification of 2 April 2013 explicitly referenced FAR 52.249-8 by incorporation.
- MAP did not appeal the default COFD within the 90-day Contract Disputes Act (CDA) period.
- On 27 April 2015 MAP submitted a claim for breach damages; DLA deemed it denied and MAP filed this appeal. DLA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
- The Board previously dismissed MAP's appeals as to the other two contracts; it here considered whether the lack of an express default clause in contract 4479 made the COFD legally deficient and therefore not triggering the CDA 90-day appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAP's 2015 claim is in substance a challenge to the 2013 default termination | MAP: Claim is a breach claim, timely; omission of default clause denied MAP adequate notice so 90-day period never began | DLA: Claim attacks propriety of the 2013 default COFD; COFD was final and triggered the 90-day CDA period | Held: The 2015 claim equates to a challenge to the default COFD and is untimely |
| Whether the absence of an express default clause in contract 4479 invalidates the COFD for purposes of starting the CDA 90-day appeal period | MAP: Missing clause meant no adequate notice of termination rights; COFD therefore insufficient to trigger appeal period; also argued COFD failed to advise about inability to proceed pro se in Court of Federal Claims | DLA: COFD satisfied CDA procedural requirements; absence of clause does not invalidate COFD; procedural sufficiency controls | Held: Lack of default clause does not affect COFD validity for triggering the CDA 90-day appeal period; COFD was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (contractor bears burden to prove Board jurisdiction by preponderance)
- Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (CDA 90‑day appeal period is jurisdictional and may not be waived)