Bearingpoint liquidating trust agreement
28, 2016) (contractor's responses to cure notices and notice of termination did not constitute CDA claims and default termination, itself, was not decision on those alleged claims; contractor's request that Contracting Officer withdraw unsatisfactory performance evaluation and Contracting Officer's denial of that request constituted CDA claim and decision) Baistar Mechanical, Inc. 28, 2016) (court lacks jurisdiction over quantum meruit claim; dismisses claims based on (i) directions received from Contracting Officer's technical representative (because contract specifically stated only Contracting Officer had authority to order changed work) except claims for allegedly emergency work requirements and (ii) Government's failure to order certain work because contract did not require Government to do so; refuses to dismiss other claims based on contract ambiguity where contractor has alleged course of dealing supporting its interpretation) Bryndon Fisher v. 6, 2016) (in dispute over default termination, court dismisses: (i) counts of complaint alleging (a) interference with contractor's ability to secure other contracts and (b) unjust enrichment, as outside court's jurisdiction and (ii) count alleging breach of contract because contractor had not submitted CDA claim for breach to Contracting Officer) California Department of Water Resources v. 4, 2016) (agreements for operation and maintenance of water storage facilities in California are not contracts within the coverage of the CDA) Federal Contracting, Inc. 27, 2017) (contract that incorporated regulation but not provision in underlying statute upon which plaintiff was relying did not create a contractual term that could be breached) Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. 18, 2017) (contractor's messages to Contracting Officer concerning disputed performance evaluation did not constitute a CDA claim because they did not request a decision and contemplated further dialogue) Michael Roth & Assocs., Architects & Planners, Inc. 20, 2015) (claim preclusion bars "alternative" government claim re alleged CAS noncompliance that could have been raised in Contracting Officer's decision that already has been litigated) Donald A. 19, 2015) (no standing because no privity of contract, and no jurisdiction because of (i) prior election to proceed at CBCA and (ii) failure to file suit within 12 months of Contracting Officer's decision) SUFI Network Services, Inc.
12, 2015) (invoices not in dispute at the time they were submitted for payment did not constitute CDA claim; contractor's challenge to default termination filed more than 12 months after the fact was untimely)JEM Transport, Inc.
30, 2017) (Government's letter informing lessor that, effective on a stated date, Government would vacate leased premises and terminate lease and that Government would not pay rent beyond that date constituted government claim under CDA) Brian X.
24, 2017) (agency properly reviewed government employee's unsolicited proposal under FAR 15.606 and rejected it because it addressed a previously-published agency requirement; plaintiff's allegations that agency improperly disclosed or misused data marked as restrictive in unsolicited proposal are speculative and implausible) James M Fogg Farms, Inc., et al.
12, 2018) (dismisses subcontractor's suit for amount unpaid from prime as moot because ASBCA had already dismissed case (which involved same allegations as the current case) with prejudice almost two years earlier and any remaining efforts to collect judgment by subcontractor are state court issues) Philip Emiabata d/b/ Philema Brothers v.
17, 2017) (apart from portion of suit challenging default termination, plaintiff's various contract claims for damages must be dismissed because they were not first presented to the Contracting Officer for a decision) Scott Goodsell v.
23, 2015) (CDA allows Contracting Officer only one extension of 60-day time limit for deciding claim in excess of 0,000.