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.
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]
Roads & Bridges | Maximizing Damage Recovery
MAXIMIZING DAMAGE RECOVERY
Tracking Costs, Avoiding Duplication in Liquidated and Actual Damage Claims
A County and Contractor contracted for construction of a road and […]
Roads & Bridges | Roadwork, Delays and Disputes
ROADWORK, DELAYS, AND DISPUTES
The Subcontract Case In Pecos County, Texas
“Road construction is ubiquitous in our society. . . .” C&C Road […]
Roads & Bridges | Understanding Sovereign Immunity
UNDERSTANDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY| Public Contracts and Lessons from Recent Texas Cases
Generally, governmental entities are immune from lawsuits. One exception is contractual. If […]
Roads & Bridges | Indiana Court Upholds Broad ND4D Clause
INDIANA COURT UPHOLDS BROAD ND4D CLAUSE | Ruling Precludes Subcontractor Claims for Delay and Acceleration Damages
This is the story of an Indiana […]
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
