• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights Publication Magazine Corner
Main image for Litigating Against the Government? Recent Decision Regarding Claim Certification Dispute Proves That Forrest Gump’s Mama Was Right All Along
Publications|Alert

Litigating Against the Government? Recent Decision Regarding Claim Certification Dispute Proves That Forrest Gump’s Mama Was Right All Along

Government Contracts Alert

8.19.2016

Forrest Gump’s mama was a brilliant woman. As anyone who watched the 1994 Academy Award-winning classic can confirm, Mrs. Gump’s advice to her son provided an indispensable well of wisdom from which Forrest often drew to navigate life’s many adversities. Perhaps the most famous of Mrs. Gump’s quotes equated the unpredictability of life with the somewhat surprising discoveries one can make after removing the lid from a box of chocolates. As it turns out, contractors can learn a lot from Mrs. Gump.

With its August 9, 2016, opinion in AMX Veterans Specialty Servs., LLC, CBCA No. 5180, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) reiterated an important message that has become all too familiar to companies pursuing claims against the Government:  facts matter, the law matters, and sometimes the Government seems to know neither.  This is a case in which the Government’s reliance on outdated law, incorrect facts, and unfounded assumptions required a small business to expend precious time and resources defending itself against allegations that it improperly certified a claim and incorrectly lodged an appeal with the Board. The case is not complicated:

  • On September 30, 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) entered into a contract with AMX Veterans Specialty Services, LLC (“AMX” or the “Company”) to demolish an auditorium and to construct the Learning Center of the North Texas Veterans Health Care Center in Dallas, Texas. 
  • During performance, the contract was modified nine times, with AMX’s Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) executing each modification on behalf of the Company.
  • The VA terminated the contract for default on December 5, 2013. Less than two years later – on April 10, 2015 – the VA converted the default termination to a termination for convenience.
  • On June 29, 2015, AMX submitted a termination for convenience settlement proposal. As with the bilateral contract modifications, this document also was signed by the COO.
  • On November 6, 2015, AMX submitted a $2,232,214 certified claim to the VA for costs and damages incurred both before and as a result of the termination for convenience. The COO certified the claim on behalf of AMX.
  • The VA failed to issue a contracting officer’s final decision on the claim within the requisite sixty-day time period.
  • AMX subsequently filed a formal Notice of Appeal (“Appeal”) with the Board on January 29, 2016, based on the theory that the VA’s failure to respond to the claim was deemed to be a decision denying the claim.
  • The VA filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) the Appeal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In so doing, the VA alleged that: 
    • AMX’s certification was defective because the COO did not have the authority to bind the Company, and
    • The case was improperly before the Board because the Appeal was not signed by an authorized individual.

The Board rejected the VA’s arguments in their entirety because, simply stated, they were factually unsubstantiated and legally unmeritorious. A brief distillation of the opinion is as follows:

  • First, the Board noted that it is “well-settled law that even if [the COO] did not have authority to certify AMX’s claim, and the certification would consequently be considered defective, the Board would not be deprived of jurisdiction.”  The Board also chastised the VA for “incorrectly rel[ying] on pre-1992 case law” to support its Motion, notwithstanding the fact that the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) of 1978 was amended in 1992 – nearly a quarter century ago – explicitly to provide that a defect in the certification of a claim does not deprive an agency board of contract appeals of jurisdiction over that claim.
  • Second, the VA alleged that the COO did not have the authority to bind AMX because the underlying contract was not signed by the COO. This argument did not gain any traction because there is no requirement that an individual certifying a claim on behalf of a company must have executed the underlying contract to which the claim relates.
  • Third, the VA contended that the COO lacked the requisite authority to certify the claim because the reports filed with the Texas Secretary of State did not list the COO as the COO or manager of AMX. In dispatching this argument, the Board noted that the VA “failed to point to any provision that required AMX to file certain documents with the State of Texas to establish [the COO’s] authority.”  The Board also found that the COO had both the actual and apparent authority to bind AMX for purposes of certifying the claim. The COO had actual authority because he was elected as the manager and appointed the COO of AMX, which by AMX’s own regulations vested him with the broad authority to obligate the Company for claim certification purposes. The COO had apparent authority because AMX created the reasonable belief that the COO had the power to bind the Company and the VA “accepted as binding” the COO’s signature on behalf of AMX on numerous contract documents during and after contract performance, including: (1) all nine of the contract’s bilateral modifications, (2) the settlement agreement converting the termination for default to a termination for convenience, and (3) the termination for convenience settlement proposal. During these many critical exchanges with the Government, the Board found “no indication” that the VA questioned the COO’s authority “to bind AMX during or after contract performance.”
  • Fourth, the VA argued that AMX’s claim should be dismissed under Board Rules 2 and 5 because the Appeal was signed by an individual who purportedly “lacked the authority” to do so. Remarkably, the VA’s argument was premised on the mistaken belief that the Appeal had been executed by the COO, when it had in fact been signed by AMX’s attorney in accordance with Rules 2 and 5.

Unfortunately, this type of disconcerting fact pattern typifies the unpredictable battlefield that increasing numbers of contractors are being forced to navigate when litigating against the Government. If your company is in an active or contemplated dispute with the Government, consult with counsel early and often to ensure that any misstatements and/or unfounded arguments advanced by Uncle Sam are quickly and efficiently addressed. Most importantly, before you read anything the Government has filed, take a deep breath and remember that what Mrs. Gump said about chocolate boxes also applies to arguments advanced by the Government in the heat of litigation – “You never know what you’re gonna get.” 

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Franklin C. Turner
Franklin C. Turner

Partner

Related Services

Government Contracts & Global Trade
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel