United States: Federal Circuit Decides Two CDA Jurisdiction Cases In Contractors' Favor And Provides Guidance On Maropakis

Over the last two weeks, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions that resolved Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdictional challenges in contractors' favor, rejecting government attempts to use procedural technicalities to avoid the merits of a dispute. This Advisory summarizes the decisions, Secretary of the Army v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.,1 (KBR) and Hejran Hejrat Co. LTD v. U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers,2 (HHL) and their implications.

KBR: Prior Material Breach Is an Affirmative Defense That Does Not Require Claim Submission

The KBR decision arose as part of a long-running dispute regarding the allowability of certain private security contractor (PSC) costs that KBR incurred during performance of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). Despite previously reimbursing PSC costs, the Army midstream changed course, deemed the costs unallowable, and withheld $44 million from KBR's outstanding invoices. The issue travelled through a series of decisions by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and the Federal Circuit. Subsequently, KBR filed an amended complaint at ASBCA alleging, in relevant part, that "KBR 'is entitled to judgment because the Army breached its contractual obligations to provide adequate force protection and the use of PSCs was a permissible remedy.'"3

The Army moved to dismiss this allegation for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that KBR had not submitted a CDA claim to the contracting officer alleging prior breach as a basis for relief, relying on the Federal Circuit's controversial decision in M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States.4 The ASBCA denied the Army's motion and granted summary judgment in KBR's favor. With respect to jurisdiction, the Board applied prior Federal Circuit precedent from Laguna Construction Co. v. Carter, which held that the common law defense of prior material breach does not need to be presented as a CDA claim.5 On the merits, the Board held that the Army's failure to provide adequate protection constituted a prior material breach, justifying the PSC costs.6

The Army appealed, and, among other things, repeated its argument that KBR's prior material breach allegations should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In a non-precedential decision the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that its decision in Laguna controlled, and thus KBR's prior material breach claim did not need to be submitted to the contracting officer as a certified claim.7 Notably the Federal Circuit found it irrelevant that, due to the posture of the dispute, KBR was technically seeking to recover funds already in the government's possession:

We recognize that the posture of this case differs from Laguna. The government in Laguna asserted its defense to withhold payment whereas KBR asserted its defense to recover payment. We nonetheless conclude that Laguna's teachings apply here. The government pays the contractor for services performed, so monies at issue are necessarily in the hands of the government first. Whether prior material breach is asserted to eliminate debt as in Laguna, or to recover withheld payments as here, the effect is the same—the defense is asserted to defeat a wrongful monetary claim.8

Although it seems clear now that a contractor need not submit a separate CDA claim to assert the defense of prior material breach, this area of case law stemming from the Federal Circuit's Maropakis decision is notoriously complex, and almost a decade later it is still essentially impossible to predict which defenses do and do not need to be presented to a contracting officer in the form of a CDA claim. Until this area of law is less volatile, best practice is to present all potential defenses in the form of a CDA claim before relying on them at the Board or Court of Federal Claims.

HHL: A Common Sense Analysis for Requesting a Contracting Officers Decision

The Federal Circuit's recent HHL decision addresses the requirement that, before a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) can qualify as a claim and provide the basis for CDA jurisdiction, the contractor must actually request a contracting officer's decision and the contracting officer must actually issue a decision (notwithstanding the potential for a deemed denial).

Amidst a dispute with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding contract price adjustments under a contract to provide transportation services in Afghanistan, HHL submitted to the contracting officer a document titled "Request for Equitable Adjustment," which requested compensation and stated that the document should be "treated as an REA,"9 The contracting officer denied the request in a writing characterized as "the Government's final determination in this matter."10 HHL appealed to the ASBCA, but the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because, "at no point, in six years of communication with [the agency], has HHL requested a contracting officer's final decision."11 There was apparently no dispute that HHL's REA satisfied the other required aspects of a claim.12

The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the Board for further proceedings, finding that "there was a request for a final decision by a contracting officer and a final decision entered by the contracting officer."13 First, the Federal Circuit squarely rejected the government's suggestion that there is any jurisdictional significance to HHL styling its submission as an REA instead of a claim, citing a long line of Federal Circuit precedent recognizing that REAs may satisfy the claim submission requirements. Second, the Circuit rejected the notion that HHL's REA submission did not include language clearly requesting a contracting officer's decision, quoting prior precedent that the Circuit:

"is loathe to believe that in this case a reasonable contractor would submit to the contracting officer a letter containing a payment request after a dispute had arisen solely for the contracting officer's information and without at the very least an implied request that the contracting officer make a decision as to entitlement. Any other finding offends logic."14

Third, and finally, the Federal Circuit rejected the government's argument that the HHL REA did not request a contracting officer's final decision because prior HHL communications on the issue had expressly stated that they did not seek a contracting officer's final decision. The Federal Circuit noted that, while prior correspondence may have expressly stated that no decision was requested, the ultimate REA did not include any such disclaimer, and postdated the earlier correspondence by more than a year. On this point, the Federal Circuit also found relevant that the REA "was sworn unlike earlier submissions, and thus had a formality lacking in the earlier submissions".

HHL, like KBR, does not change the law of CDA jurisdiction or provide any groundbreaking analysis. These cases do provide some assurance that the defense of prior material breach need not be raised in a CDA claim before a contractor may rely on the defense, and that REAs may constitute CDA claims when they otherwise meet the requirements. But in an area of law that so often results in contractors having their claims dismissed after years of litigation based on unpredictable procedural technicalities that work no real prejudice against the government, it is always appreciated and noteworthy for the Federal Circuit to decide CDA jurisdictional issues sensibly, equitably, and correctly. Nevertheless, contractors must be diligent to adhere to the statutory and regulatory prescriptions for a claim, in order to avoid jurisdictional pitfalls that could prevent a contractor from justified recovery on the merits.


1. No. 2018-1022, 2019 WL 2932769 (Table) (July 9, 2019) (non-precedential)

2. No. 2018-2206, 2019 WL 3210172 (July 17, 2019)

3. KBR, No. 2018-1022 at *2-5.

4. 609 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

5. 828 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

6. Appeals of—Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. Inc., ASBCA No. 56358, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36779 (2017).

7. KBR, No. 2018-1022 at *9-10.

8. KBR, No. 2018-1022 at *9-10.

9. HCC, No. 2018-2206 at *2 (internal quotation and alteration omitted).

10. Id. (internal quotation omitted).

11. Id. (internal quotation omitted).

12. See id. at *3-4.

13. Id. at *2.

14. Id. at *5 (quoting Transamerica Ins. Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1992), overruled in part by Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1573, 1579 & n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions