PROTEC GmbH
PROTEC GmbH appealed the government's motions to dismiss based on jurisdictional grounds related to the validity of the contracting officer's final decisions. The Board denied the motions, affirming its jurisdiction over the appeals.
Material Facts
- The government awarded Contract No. W912CM-14-D-0007 to PROTEC GmbH for maintenance, inspection, and repair of fire systems on 28 September 2014.
- The government rated PROTEC as unsatisfactory in a CPARS evaluation on 26 October 2015.
- PROTEC submitted a certified claim regarding the CPARS evaluation and another for unpaid invoices totaling €143,615.92.
- The contracting officer issued a COFD on 6 February 2017, denying PROTEC's claims for various reasons related to performance.
- The government awarded Contract No. W912CM-14-P-0008 to PROTEC for maintenance and repair of electronic systems on 20 December 2013.
- PROTEC submitted a certified claim for unpaid invoices totaling €141,827.88 on 31 October 2016.
- The contracting officer issued a COFD on 28 February 2017, denying the claim due to failure to provide timely documentation.
- Concerns about PROTEC's performance were raised by the contracting officer's representative, leading to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Parties
- Appellant
- PROTEC GmbH
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W912CM-14-D-0007
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
- Procal Electric, Inc.No. 63580-ADROctober 2, 2026
- VESEQU LLCNo. 64468August 21, 2026
- PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLCNo. 64164July 13, 2026
- First Street Contractors, LLCNo. 64028June 10, 2026
- VESEQU LLCNo. 64468May 21, 2026
- First Street Contractors, LLCNo. 64028February 20, 2026
Same Year
- AT&T Corp.No. 61868December 21, 2018
- Gilbane Federal Joint VentureNo. 61590December 21, 2018
- WIT Associates, Inc.No. 61547December 19, 2018
- Avis Industries, Inc.No. 61609December 19, 2018
- Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc.No. 61209, 61210, 61211, 61212 61213, 61214December 19, 2018
- J.F. Brennan Co., Inc.No. 60737December 19, 2018
Same Issue
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- Wild Hare Haulers, LLCNo. 64596, 64597, 64598September 15, 2026
- Hensel Phelps Construction CompanyNo. 64327September 14, 2026
- Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p. A Joint VentureNo. 64038, 64336, 64428September 9, 2026
- VAE, Inc.No. 64437, 64464, 64465September 9, 2026
- Dubai Pearl CompanyNo. 64444August 26, 2026