Sweet Star Logistic Service
Sweet Star Logistic Service appealed the government's dismissal of its claim for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that it had submitted a valid claim under the Contract Disputes Act. The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim lacked a sum certain.
Material Facts
- The United States Army awarded Contract No. W91B4N-18-P-5056 to Sweet Star Logistic Service for the delivery of information technology equipment and cable supplies.
- The total contract price was 14,051,489.13 AFN ($203,644.77).
- The government notified appellant that some items were missing, damaged, and non-conforming to the contract specifications.
- The contracting officer informed appellant it was not responsible for items that came up missing.
- The government issued a bilateral contract modification changing the unit price of contract line item number 0001.
- Appellant submitted a request for payment that did not include a sum certain or the required claim certification.
- The government considered appellant’s email as a claim for the amount by which the contract was reduced, but the Board found it did not include a sum certain.
- The contracting officer issued a final decision denying part of appellant’s purported claim.
Parties
- Appellant
- Sweet Star Logistic Service
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W91B4N-18-P-5056
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
- Xerox CorporationNo. 63436, 63437November 22, 2023
- Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation Space Systems, Inc.No. 63512November 22, 2023
- Pigott Asphalt and Sitework, LLCNo. 63731November 21, 2023
- Delta Mechanical Contractors, LLCNo. 63593November 21, 2023
- Kondazi EnterpriseNo. 63628October 2, 2023
- Fluor-AMEC II, LLCNo. 63554September 28, 2023
Same Year
- Sweet Star Logistic ServiceNo. 62082December 29, 2020
- Nan, Inc.No. 61472, 61482, 61500, 61509, 61514, 61523, 61555, 61569, 61705, 61726, 61727, 61728, 61821, 61822, 61823, 61963December 18, 2020
- Asahi General Trading & Cont. Co. W.L.L.No. 62445December 18, 2020
- Kautaq Construction Services, LLCNo. 62462-ADRDecember 18, 2020
- MAC Electric Inc.No. 62503December 18, 2020
- Parsons Government Services, Inc.No. 62112December 17, 2020
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