Not bad power, but the ability of a decision-maker (e.g., court) to decide which side is right (or which is more correct). A judge’s power is not automatic. Every court must first decide if it has the power to decide the parties’ dispute – whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved. Without such power, no further decisions can be made.
Based upon recent guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court (Wilkins v. U.S., No. 21-1164, March 28, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the requirement to state a sum certain under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 is NOT a jurisdictional requirement. Failure to state a sum certain does NOT deprive the decision-maker of power. Arguments regarding sum certain are subject to “disagreement on the merits” not dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant “organiz[ed] its sub-claims in a manner different from how the [Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals] would sub-divide claims” or how the Government would have preferred the claimant have sub-divided its claims. Although “a deficient sum certain may in some circumstances be a reason to reject all or part of a claim, it does not mean the Board lacks jurisdiction entirely.” The Federal Circuit did not describe or exemplify “some circumstances,” so stay tuned for what that means.
Claimants should still state a sum (or sums) certain or specific in their claims, no estimates or place-holders (see another post on this point). But now, if claimants are not specific, it can be cured without depriving the decision-maker of power to resolve the disputes.
Roads & Bridges |Let the Contract Lead
LET THE CONTRACT LEAD
Documents offer guidance needed to manage risk without derailing projects
Construction is an industry of managed risk. Whether the prices […]
Roads & Bridges | When is an Invoice Really an Invoice?
WHEN IS AN INVOICE REALLY AN INVOICE?
All court decisions are opinions. Appellate court decisions are typically made by a panel of three […]
Roads & Bridges | Clarifying Punitive Damages
CLARIFYING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In June 2021, the South Dakota Department of Transportation contracted for the demolition and construction of a bridge on State […]
Roads & Bridges | When Approximate Means Assumed Risk
WHEN APPROXIMATE MEANS ASSUMED RISK
A New York Court Shows How Performance Specifications Can Leave Contractors Holding the Bag
Sometimes when we are told […]
Roads & Bridges | From Roman Arches to AI
FROM ROMAN ARCHES TO AI
Can Construction Evolve Without Risk?
The construction industry blends old with new. From ancient Roman archways and aqueducts and […]
Roads & Bridges | Caught in the Middle
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
New Mexico bridge case highlights the importance of written agreements for changes and delay compensation
In construction contracting, hope for […]
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]
