Claims and Disputes

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the federal government has withdrawn its False Claim Act suit against KBR alleging $100 million in improper charges for private security costs under KBR’s LOGCAP III contract. We criticized the court’s August 3, 2011 decision denying KBR’s motion to dismiss the case last summer. While KBR has good reason…

Contractors are entitled to recover consultant and attorney costs reasonably incurred in preparing, pricing, and negotiating a change order under federal government contracts, including U.S. Postal Service contracts. That’s the holding in Tip Top Constr., Inc. v. Donahoe, 695 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court overturned a Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals decision that had erroneously limited the contractor’s recovery of these costs. End result: if an agency changes your contract (whether by unilateral direction or constructive change), your request for an equitable price adjustment may include reasonable consultant and attorney costs.

There is no doubt that contractors have the power to challenge an erroneous assessment of their performance on a government contract. FAR 42.1503 requires the government to issue past performance reviews in draft. Contractors are entitled to rebut any inaccuracies in the draft. Even if the government declines to make a requested change, contractors are entitled to have their comments included in the final report. Under the FAR disputes clause, contractors may submit a claim challenging a faulty past performance assessment. Denial of such a claim can be appealed to a Board of Contract Appeals or the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Of course getting a court decision reversing a poor past performance assessment presents a number of hurdles. One such hurdle is the requirement that a contractor submit a “claim” and that the contracting officer issue a final decision denying it. Without a claim and a final decision or sufficient passage of time to establish a “deemed denial,” there would be no jurisdiction allowing a Board or the Court to consider a contractor challenge to a poor past performance assessment.

But what happens when a negative past performance assessment is linked to unresolved disputes over delays, change orders, or government backcharges? Wouldn’t a resolution in the contractor’s favor necessarily require a reassessment of the contractor’s performance? As a matter of common sense, yes. Unfortunately common sense doesn’t create Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction. The recent decision in Extreme Coatings, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-895C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2012), concludes that a claim involving affirmative contractor claims or government counterclaims does not meet the jurisdictional requirement for a claim challenging past performance.

The Prompt Payment Act requires agencies to pay interest on late payments. If the interest isn’t paid when due, the contractor is entitled to collect an additional interest penalty. A June 26, 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office looks at how much the Prompt Payment Act costs the Department of Defense.

According to GAO’s estimate, DOD paid late payment penalties totaling about $21 million in 2011. This number is comprised of $19 million in late-payment penalties reported on transactions processed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. GAO estimates that DOD paid about $2 million in late payment penalties on transactions processed outside of DFAS, which includes transactions handled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and TRICARE. GAO estimates that DOD lost another $9 million by foregoing prompt payment discounts.

Jurisdictional issues arising from disputes about wages and benefits required by federal minimum wage statutes like the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act can be tricky. In some cases, the Department of Labor has exclusive power to resolve such disputes. In others, the dispute must be resolved by the contracting officer, with appeal rights available under the Contract Disputes Act. The ASBCA’s recent decision in Caddell Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 57831 (May 21, 2012) [pdf] helps determine which cases fall on either side of this line.

The case arose from an Air Force contract to build a new commissary and related site work at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The solicitation included two wage determinations—one for highway construction with low wage rates and another for building construction with much higher wage rates. Prior to bid, the agency told bidders to use the lower highway construction wage determination. During performance, the contracting officer required the contractor to pay wages according to the higher wage determination for building construction.

The contractor submitted a claim in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act. At the Board, the government moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that such labor disputes are reserved to the Department of Labor. The Board denied the motion, holding that the Board has jurisdiction to hear disputes over wage issues “where there was an alleged mistake (mutual or unilateral) as to the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to appellant’s employees.” The Board concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the contractor’s claim to recover additional wages paid to employees as a result of faulty wage rate information provided to bidders before submission of bids.

But why is this important?

Oral contracts do exist, and the U.S. Postal Service cannot force you to sign a contract with different terms than previously agreed upon. That’s the take-way from a recent decision issued by the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA) in a case called Sharon Roedel, PSBCA No. 6347, 6348, April 10, 2012.  The PSBCA found that the Postal Service breached an oral contract it had with Roedel, and that USPS owed her the profits and wages she would have earned under the six-month emergency contract.

Courts often look at a party’s conduct for help in interpreting ambiguous contract terms. But this concept has broader application. Actions and positions that one side takes before a dispute arises may actually override a clear contract requirement. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ recent decision in TKC Aerospace, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA No. 2119 (Jan. 31, 2012) [pdf] illustrates the point. The Board’s opinion identifies the contractor’s response to a problem during performance as the key factor in resolving the case.

The FAR Cost Principles and federal cost reimbursement contracts provide that only reasonable allowable costs are recoverable, including costs for executive compensation. A January 18, 2012 decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals rejected a government challenge to the reasonableness of compensation one contractor paid to executives and rejected the DCAA’s methodology for determining the reasonableness of the compensation. See J.F. Taylor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56105, 56322 (Jan. 18, 2012) [pdf].

Is every routine contract dispute a potential false claim? Is it a false claim to adopt an interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision that was the subject of debate within the company? As a matter of law and common sense, the answer to these questions must be “no.” But Chief Judge Royce Lamberth’s August 3 decision in United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., No. 10-cv-530 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2011) [pdf], casts sobering doubt on this answer.

Corrections to the proposed rewrite of FAR 42.1503 reinstate the contractor’s role in past performance evaluations. As published on June 28, 2011, the rewritten FAR provision omitted language from the existing clause that protects the contractor’s interests in the process. As corrected on August 9, the contractor protections have been restored.