top of page
  • Writer's pictureR.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Federal Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Small Claims Decision of Boards Except for Fraud

The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) limits the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit when reviewing Board of Contract Appeals decisions. Board decisions adjudicated pursuant to the Small Claims Procedure are “final and conclusive and may not be set aside except in cases of fraud.” 41 U.S.C. 7106(b)(4) and 7107. To invoke the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, an appellant must make a non-frivolous allegation of fraud in the Board’s proceeding.


In Billlio O. Stone, DBA Stobil Enteprise v. Secy of the Air Force, Fed. Cl. No. 2020-1233 (Oct. 19, 2021), the Court considered appellant Stone’s claim for removal and replacement of a door under a contract for door removal and replacement. Stone advised the Air Force contract specialist that upon inspection, the drum, which assists in the door’s electrical operation, was damaged. The contract specialist advised Stone that it would need to replace the drum at no additional cost. Stone disagreed and submitted a claim to the contracting officer for $126,000. The contracting officer denied the claim. When Stone failed to remove and replace the door in the time specified in the contract, the Air Force terminated the contract.


Stone appealed to the Board pursuant to the Small Claims procedure and the Board agreed that Stone should have replaced the drum at no extra cost when it replaced the door,. The appeal was denied.


The Federal Circuit dismissed Stone’s appeal because the company failed to non-frivolously allege fraud. Stone’s fraud allegations were conclusory and unsupported, and Stone provided no specific evidence in support of those allegations. “At bottom, Stone’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Board’s determination.” Because Stone provided no nonfrivolous allegations of fraud, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the appeal.


Takeaway. Don’t appeal a Small Claims Board decision to the Federal Circuit unless you can provide nonfrivolous allegations of fraud in the Board’s proceedings. This means that general allegations of fraud are insufficient. You must provide specific examples of fraud, and actual evidence of that fraud in order for your allegation to be nonfrivolous in order to provide the Court with jurisdiction under the CDA.






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.


4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Asserting Duress in Signing a Modification

Sand Point Services, LLC brought two claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, both involving modifications.  Sand Point Servs., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820, January 4, 2024.  The f

Requirements Contracts: Words of Exclusivity

The Federal Circuit recently clarified that an agency’s contract may still contain requisite language to make it a requirements contract, even if the contract does not include the required Federal Acq

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