By: Alyssa Aquino
Our government contracting team, Dale Holmes, Michael Payne and Ryan Boonstra, successfully represented a military contractor client in a revived eight-year-old, $13.1 million claim against the U.S. Army over a delayed construction deal. A three-judge panel ruled that Army’s failure to state a “sum certain” for its claim was not a jurisdictional error.
Ryan spoke with Law360 regarding the ruling, “Our team is overwhelmingly positive about the opinion … we look at it as a big win for us.” He continued, “We’re confident that our case is fully representative of a government forfeiture.”
The Federal Circuit revived a military contractor’s 8-year-old, $13.1 million claim against the U.S. Army over a delayed construction deal, ruling Tuesday that its failure to state a “sum certain” for its claim was not a jurisdictional error.
The three-judge panel said that federal lawmakers must clearly state that a rule is jurisdictional for courts to treat it as such. “It could not be evident” that U.S. Congress failed to do so with the “sum certain” rule — a requirement for parties to state the specific value of their claim — as that requirement is not even in the Contract Disputes Act, the panel said.