Simulation Technology, LLC v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 105
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiff Simulation Technology, LLC, contracted by USAF to build a HEAT training device for $93,000; delivery originally due January 24, 2009.
- Plaintiff alleges delays were excusable due to issues with parts and readiness of the cab, delaying performance.
- USAF consented to revised delivery schedules on multiple occasions, with discussions about consideration for delays.
- December 23, 2009, HEAT delivered 11 months after the original delivery date; CO later reduced price by $23,000 for late delivery.
- Plaintiff claimed the Government waived consideration by modifying delivery schedules and accepting delivery; sought full contract balance in CDA appeal.
- Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing Plaintiff did not present an excusable delays claim to the CO for a final decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA jurisdiction exists for excusable delays claim. | Plaintiff contends the claim is based on excusable delays and thus within the same dispute. | Government argues the excusable delays claim was not presented to the CO and thus not jurisdictionally proper. | No jurisdiction; excusable delays claim not sufficiently presented to CO. |
| Whether Plaintiff’s administrative claim gave the CO notice of excusable delays. | Plaintiff says administrative claim included related delay issues. | Government contends the claim focused on modification and lack of consideration, not excusable delays. | Administrative claim did not provide notice of excusable delays; CO wasn't on notice. |
| Whether the two claims are the same operative facts. | Plaintiff argues Scott Timber allows some flexibility in claim language. | Government argues the administrative claim and appeal lack the same operative facts for jurisdiction. | Not the same operative facts; jurisdiction lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott Timber, Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2003) (jurisdiction requires similar operative facts and notice to CO)
- Cerberonics, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 415 (Cl.Ct.1987) (same-claim requirement; notice to CO)
- Santa Fe Eng’rs v. United States, 818 F.2d 856 (Fed.Cir.1987) (differences in claims may negate jurisdiction if not sufficiently specific)
- A.A.B. Joint Venture v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 414 (Fed.Cl.2007) (constructive change—new claim lacking notice defeats jurisdiction)
- Thermocor v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 480 (Fed.Cl.1996) (same equitable adjustment based on same operative facts justifies jurisdiction)
- Sauer Inc. v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2000) (excusable delays require proof of uncontrollable delay and lack of fault)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed.Cir.1988) (burden on plaintiff to prove jurisdiction on motion to dismiss)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (plaintiff must show jurisdictional facts)