Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

July 17, 2019

HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Appellee

          Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No. 61234, Administrative Judge Donald Evan Kinner, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

          Joseph Aloysius Hennessey, The Law Office of Joseph Hennessey, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, argued for appellant.

          Jessica R. Toplin, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt, Robert Edward Kirschman, Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy.

          Before Newman, Dyk, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.

          Dyk, Circuit Judge.

         Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd. ("HHL") appeals from a decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("Board") dismissing HHL's case for lack of jurisdiction. Because we conclude that there was a request for a final decision by a contracting officer and a final decision entered by the contracting officer, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

         Background

         This appeal arises from HHL's 2011 contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") to provide transportation services in Afghanistan. After the contract expired, HHL requested additional compensation from the USACE based on alleged violations of the contract: suspension of work, changes to the contract requirements, and termination of the original contract. After various preliminary submissions, on March 5, 2015, HHL submitted a document entitled "Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA)" with a sworn statement by HHL's Deputy Managing Director having "full management [authority] to . . . close out . . . the contract." J.A. 70. In that submission, HHL requested that the submission be "treated as a[n] REA," J.A. 74, and requested $4, 137, 964 in compensation. The contracting officer denied HHL's request on March 26, 2017, in what the contracting officer characterized as the "Government's final determination in this matter." J.A. 116. HHL appealed the decision, but the Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because "[a]t no point, in six years of communication with the [USACE], has HHL requested a contracting officer's final decision." J.A. 4.

         HHL appealed to our court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). We review the Board's determination of its jurisdiction de novo. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).

         Discussion

         In order for the Board to have jurisdiction, there must be a final decision by a contracting officer on a claim. Parsons Glob. Servs. v. McHugh, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103). The issue on appeal is whether HHL requested a contracting officer's final decision on a claim, such that the officer's denial constituted a final decision that supported the Board's jurisdiction.

         The statute provides that "[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision." 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Thus, in order to constitute a claim a contractor must request a final decision by a contracting officer. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing James M. Ellet Const. Co., v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) ("The CDA . . . requires that a claim indicate to the contracting officer that the contractor is requesting a final decision.").

         "[W]e evaluate whether a particular request for payment amounts to a claim based on the [Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs), ] . . . the language of the contract in dispute, and the facts of each case." Parsons, 677 F.3d at 1170. Under the relevant FAR, a claim is defined as "a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in sum certain." FAR 52.233-1(c) (2002).

         HHL contends that its March 5, 2015, submission constituted a claim within the meaning of the CDA. There is no dispute that HHL's March 5 submission was under the FAR a "written demand . . . seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in sum certain." Id. Indeed, the Board found that in its submissions "HHL adequately described five ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.