57447

Tiger Enterprises, Inc.

August 5, 2011Judge Delman
DismissedCDA JurisdictionFailure to Prosecute / Dismissal

Tiger Enterprises, Inc. appealed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction regarding its claim under Contract No. FA3030-10-P-0026. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to submit a claim to the contracting officer as required by the Contract Disputes Act.

Material Facts

  • On 1 April 2010, the government awarded appellant Contract No. FA3030-10-P-0026.
  • Under this contract, Tiger was to provide washers and dryers as well as maintenance and repair services on a lease basis to Goodfellow AFB, Texas for three months.
  • The contract included FAR 52.217-8, OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES, allowing the government to extend appellant's services for a limited period.
  • The government used this clause to extend appellant's performance through July and August 2010, but no contract modification was recorded.
  • Contract 0026 incorporated FAR 52.212-4, which stated that disputes were to be resolved in accordance with FAR 52.233-1.
  • Appellant invoiced the government for services provided but the government rejected these invoices, claiming appellant did not fully perform.
  • Appellant did not file a claim with the contracting officer related to the unpaid invoices.
  • On 3 November 2010, appellant initiated an email chain with the government regarding its claim.
  • The government insisted that appellant sign a contract modification to reflect an assignment of claims before accepting invoices.
  • Appellant's notice of appeal to the Board was dated 6 December 2010, requesting that the Board deem its November 3, 2010 claim denied.

Parties

Appellant
Tiger Enterprises, Inc.
Respondent Agency
Department of the Air Force
Contract Number
FA3030-10-P-0026
Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

Full Legal Analysis

Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.

Holding & Legal Reasoning

The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.

Issues Presented

Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.

Quantum & Recovery

The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.

Verified Authorities & Citations

Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.

Practitioner Takeaways

Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.

Similar Cases

Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.

Citation Graph

An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.