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

Untimely Receipt of an Appeal-Fedex Delivery

A recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals decision reminds us all of the jurisdictional nature of filing an appeal with the Board within 90 days of receipt of the contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision. Eagle Peak Rock & Paving, Inc. v. Dept of Transportation, CBCA 5955, April 8, 2022.


Eagle Peak had a contract with the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) for Construction Work. The company challenged DOT withholding of payments for alleged failure to submit a work schedule on time. DOT provided evidence that the CO’s decision was delivered to Eagle Peak on Sept. 1, 2017 (a FedEx receipt with a time stamp indicating delivery at 2:35 PM on Sept 1, 2017 to the address identified in the contract as the location of Eagle Peak’s offices. The receipt was signed by an individual identified by Eagle Peak as a receptionist in its office.). Eagle Peak filed its notice of appeal with the Board on December 1, 2017.


Eagle Peak offered evidence that it did not receive the CO decision until Sept. 5, 2017 because the receptionist’s regular duties did not include receipt or distribution of correspondence or packages addressed to Eagle Creek. Furthermore, the Eagle Creek offices were closed on September 1, 2017 and on September 4, 2017 for Labor Day.


The Board made short work of Eagle Creek’s reasoning. The Contract Disputes Act states that a “notice of appeal must be filed within 90 calendar days after the date of the CO decision on a claim.” 41 USC § 7014(a). Therefore, if Eagle Creek received the CO decision on September 1, 2021, the appeal had to be filed by November 30, 2017—but was not received until December 1, 2017 (one day late). The Federal Circuit has interpreted “receipt” of a CO decision to mean “actual physical receipt of that decision by the contractor [or its representative].”


In rejecting and dismissing the appeal, the CBCA noted that even though Eagle Peak alleged it did not receive the package until Sept. 5, 2017, the day after Labor Day, the firm’s office may have been closed, but there was a receptionist in the office. The receptionist signed for the package, even though she may not have been authorized to do so. That receipt was sufficient.


Takeaway: Receipt of a CO decision is actual physical receipt, notwithstanding duties in a person’s job description. Ensure that your notification of appeal (which may now be made by Email), is made within 90 days of the receipt of the CO’s decision.


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.


6 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