Government Contracting Database
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Board’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 249. A material fact is one that may affect the outcome of the case. Appeal of — Abdul Khabir Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 61155, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37027 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Conclusory statements and mere denials are not sufficient to ward off summary judgment. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The fact that both parties have moved for summary judgment does not mean that the Board must grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other. Rather, the Board must evaluate each party’s motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration. Id. at 1391.
Appeals of — Am. Int’l Contractors, Inc., ASBCA No. 60948, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37061.
Updated: August 8, 2018