The Contract Disputes Act imposes a six-year statute of limitations on all claims, whether they are asserted by the contractor or by the Government. See 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A). The limitations period begins to run upon accrual of a claim, which is “the date when all events . . . that fix the alleged liability of either the Government or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim . . . were known or should have been known.” FAR 33.201. Because six years must pass before the claim expires, the precise date of accrual is often little more than an academic question. Indeed, there have been relatively few cases applying the CDA limitations period to Government claims. But accrual has recently become a real and sometimes insurmountable obstacle to Government claims. Here is a short summary of the basic concepts that have emerged from the decisions that have addressed the issue.

1.         The government has the burden of proving timeliness. 

The CDA limitations period is “jurisdictional.” When the government asserts a claim against a contractor, the government has the burden of proving jurisdiction. To do so, the government must establish that the claim was timely asserted. If the government cannot show that the claim was asserted within six years of accrual, the Board or the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim. Raytheon Missile Systems, ASBCA No. 58011 (Jan. 28, 2013) [pdf].Continue Reading “Accrual” of government claims under the Contract Disputes Act

Developments in the OFCCP’s investigation of compensation disparities at United Space Alliance, LLC are worthy of consideration. During a 2009 desk audit, OFCCP conducted a standard threshold test of United Space Alliance’s compensation data.  Although this audit uncovered no indicators of pay discrimination, OFCCP conducted additional tests of the data, commonly known as the “pattern analysis” and the “30 and 5 Refinement” tests. These tests revealed potential pay bias, and OFCCP requested more extensive compensation data to examine the question more closely. The case begins when United Space Alliance refused to comply with OFCCP’s request.
Continue Reading United Space Alliance’s temporary agreement with OFCCP