The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
  • Home
  • Training & Education
  • Services
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for claim

November 23, 2020 By cs

ASBCA revisits email “signature” and finds typed name meets the test

In a departure from its prior precedent, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently held in Kamaludin Slyman CSC, ASBCA Nos. 62006, 62007, 62008, that a typed name at the end of an email satisfies the certification requirement under the Contract Dispute Act (CDA), so long as it is discrete, verifiable, and conveys an intent to authenticate.

The contractor at issue submitted a $155,500 demand for payment to the Government in March 2013, thus, triggering the CDA’s certification requirement under FAR 52.233-1.  The demand itself did not contain a certification, but the contractor sent a follow-up email just prior to the six-year statute of limitations, stating:

Hey Sir,
For contract numbers -12-C-0089, -12-C-0131, -11-C-0322, and the claims submitted in respect to them on March 16, 2013, I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.
Sincerely,
Kamaludin Slyman

Three days after sending this email, the contractor submitted an appeal to the ASBCA pursuant to a “deemed denial” and the Government moved to dismiss asserting that the contractor had failed to sign its certification and, thus, failed to certify its claim.  The Board noted that the Government did not argue in its motion that the appeal was premature, as the requisite 60 days had not passed between the certification and the purported deemed denial.  However, because at the time of its decision more than 60 days had elapsed since the certification, the ASBCA saw “no useful purpose in dismissing the appeal as premature and requiring appellant to refile.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/government-contracts-procurement-ppp/1003364/asbca-revisits-email-signature-and-finds-typed-name-meets-the-test

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: ASBCA, CDA, certification, claim, Contract Disputes Act, FAR

January 24, 2017 By AMK

ASBCA shoots down DCAA overreach on responsibility to manage subcontractors

A prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontractors, but what exactly does that require?

In a recent decision, the answer of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals was: not nearly as much as DCAA claimed.

In Lockheed Martin Integrated Sys., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 59508, 59509, the Board ruled on a Government claim seeking more than $100 million from LMIS for allegedly breaching an obligation to manage subcontracts. In DCAA’s reading, this obligation was extensive and required a number of concrete actions by the prime contractor.

After auditing three LMIS contracts, DCAA questioned $103 million in subcontract costs. DCAA claimed that, for the costs to be allowable, LMIS had to provide documents showing it had: (1) reviewed subcontractor resumes to confirm personnel qualifications; (2) reviewed subcontractor timesheets to confirm the accuracy of invoiced hours; and (3) tried to obtain incurred cost submissions from its subcontractors, contacting “the Government” for “assistance” if the subcontractors refused.  DCAA claimed it could find no subcontract costs allowable “[w]ithout an incurred cost submission from the subcontractor,” which was the prime contractor’s responsibility to obtain.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2017/01/asbca-shoots-dcaa-overreach-responsibility-manage-subcontractors/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: allowability, ASBCA, claim, cost analysis, DCAA, qualifications, subcontracting

October 24, 2016 By AMK

Sticks and stones: How words and terms of art can hurt the contracting profession

Contracting professional need precision in words and terms, as contract interpretation turns on minute differences in terminology and definitions. 

mastery-of-words-oct-2016Misuse of terms of art in the contracting profession leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and pernicious misconceptions.  Clarity in contracting language improves professionalism and avoids inefficient or wasteful procedures.

Words, terms of art, and definitions do not get the respect they deserve.  People calling themselves contracting professionals blithely misuse them.  Seasoned practitioners — who should know better — stay silent and allow bad habits to persist.

This article turns the spotlight on several frequently misused and abused terms of art, but it is not an exhaustive list.

Read on to explore several flagrantly abused terms of art regarding justifications and scope of the contract: http://www.wifcon.com/analy/Sticks_and_Stones.pdf

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, CICA, claim, competition, definitions, FAR, FAR Part 15, FAR Part 2, federal contracting, FSS, full and open competition, GSA Schedule, GWAC, IDIQ, J&A, MAC, modification, multiple award contract, SAP, scope of work, simplified acquisition, term of art, terms and conditions

Popular Topics

abuse acquisition reform acquisition strategy acquisition training acquisition workforce Air Force Army AT&L bid protest budget budget cuts competition cybersecurity DAU DFARS DHS DoD DOJ FAR fraud GAO Georgia Tech GSA GSA Schedule GSA Schedules IG industrial base information technology innovation IT Justice Dept. Navy NDAA OFPP OMB OTA Pentagon procurement reform protest SBA sequestration small business spending technology VA
Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter

Search this Website

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute