top of page

Defective Assignment of Claims on a Contract

Writer's picture: R.D. Lieberman,ConsultantR.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Updated: Aug 18, 2021

The Assignment of Claims Act of 1940 (31 U.S.C. § 3727 & 41 U.S.C. § 6305), provides a financing mechanism somewhat similar to the “invoice factoring” used in commercial contracts. (In commercial contracts, in order to get immediate cash when invoices are not paid timely, a business may sell its accounts receivable to a third party or factor, usually at a discount.) The Assignment of Claims Act, as implemented in FAR Subpart 32.8, permits companies to assign money that is due under the contract if the following conditions are met:


(a) The contract specifies payments aggregating $1,000 or more; (b) The assignment is made to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution, including any Federal lending agency; (c) The contract does not prohibit the assignment; (d) Unless otherwise expressly permitted in the contract, the assignment-

(1) Covers all unpaid amounts payable under the contract; (2) Is made only to one party, except that any assignment may be made to one party as agent or trustee for two or more parties participating in the financing of the contract; and (3) Is not subject to further assignment.

(e) The assignee sends a written notice of assignment together with a true copy of the assignment instrument to the- (1) Contracting officer or the agency head; (2) Surety on any bond applicable to the contract; and (3) Disbursing officer designated in the contract to make payment.

Allied Meridian Funding LLC v. Dept of Agriculture, CBCA 6893, March 18, 2021, is an example of how a contractor or assignee under the Act and the FAR can make a defective assignment and not accomplish their objectives.


On August 29, 2016, the Department of Agriculture awarded Genesis Management Group a contract to provide staffing services. Genesis executed an assignment of “all moneys due or to become due to Allied Meridian Funding” on October 10, 2016. However, the document was not notarized until December 1, 2016. Further, the Contracting Officer was given no notice, actual or constructive until December 1, 2016, when, on December 2, 2016, he modified the contract to incorporate the assignment of claims.


Allied submitted a claim for $86,840, for all invoices financed by it between October 10, 2016 and December 2, 2016. The Board denied the entire claim, agreeing that the Department of Agriculture had properly paid Genesis until December 2, 2016, because there had been no notification, as required by FAR 32.802(e) (requiring the assignee to “file written notice of the assignment and a true copy of the instrument of assignment with… the contracting officer or head of the officer’s department or agency [and others]”.) The Board noted that the Government will not recognize an assignment until the assignee files written notice, and a true copy of the instrument of assignment with the contracting officer, among others. Allied was out of luck, unless it could obtain repayment from Genesis.


Takeaway: Meeting the requirements of the Assignment of Claims Act and its regulation at FAR Subpart 32.8 is not a difficult thing to do. FAR 32.805(e) even provides a sample format for the notice of assignment, and reminds the writer of that format of the persons who must receive a copy. All the assignee needs to do is read and comply with this straightforward regulation. The transmission of an assignment should be made by Registered or Certified Mail, or by a carrier that provides a receipt, or even email, provided that the sender receives a return email confirming receipt.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.

8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page