M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States
609 F.3d 1323 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractor seeking to excuse project delays by blaming the government must first submit its own formal, valid claim for a time extension that meets all jurisdictional requirements of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), even when raising the issue as a defense against a government claim for liquidated damages.
Facts:
- On April 6, 1999, the Navy awarded M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. (Maropakis) a contract to replace windows and a roof, with a completion date later extended to February 4, 2000.
- The contract included a liquidated damages clause assessing a fee of $650 for each day the project was delayed past the completion date.
- Maropakis did not begin work until after the February 4, 2000 completion date had passed.
- The project was ultimately completed on May 17, 2001, which was 467 days after the modified completion date.
- On August 20, 2001, Maropakis sent a letter requesting a 447-day time extension, citing five alleged delays, including the discovery of lead-based paint and difficulty locating a specified window manufacturer.
- The Navy's contracting officer responded that Maropakis had not presented sufficient justification for an extension but invited the submission of additional information.
- On June 28, 2002, the Navy informed Maropakis that it owed $303,550 in liquidated damages for the 467-day delay.
- In a July 22, 2002 letter, Maropakis reiterated its request for an extension and stated it 'will dispute' the liquidated damages amount, but did not specify a total number of days requested or formally request a final decision on its extension claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Maropakis filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the trial court) against the United States.
- The complaint alleged breach of contract due to government-caused delays and sought remission of liquidated damages assessed by the government.
- The government filed a motion to dismiss Maropakis's claim regarding time extensions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The government also asserted a counterclaim for unpaid liquidated damages and moved for summary judgment on that counterclaim.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss the time extension claim and granted summary judgment to the government on its counterclaim.
- Maropakis (appellant) appealed both the dismissal and the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the United States was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) permit a contractor to assert government-caused delay as a defense to a government's claim for liquidated damages without first submitting its own valid claim for a time extension under the CDA's jurisdictional requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Linn
No. A contractor seeking an adjustment of contract terms must meet the jurisdictional requirements and procedural prerequisites of the CDA, whether asserting the claim against the government as an affirmative claim or as a defense to a government action. The CDA is a waiver of sovereign immunity that must be strictly construed, and its claim submission requirements are jurisdictional prerequisites to any appeal. A valid claim must be a written demand providing adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim and must request a final decision from the contracting officer. Maropakis’s letters failed to meet these standards; they did not state a sum certain (or a specific number of days), did not request a final decision, and were not certified as required for claims over $100,000. There is no exception in the CDA that excuses these requirements when a contractor's claim for a contract modification is styled as a defense to a government claim.
Dissenting - Newman
Yes. A contractor should be permitted to defend against a government's claim for delay damages by showing the government caused or contributed to the delay, without being forced to file a separate, formal 'claim' for a contract modification. The court has jurisdiction over the government's claim, and that jurisdiction should be sufficient to hear all relevant defenses to that claim. A defense is not the same as an affirmative claim for money or contract reformation; Maropakis is merely objecting to the merits of the government's assessment. Precedent like Garrett v. General Electric Co. distinguishes between claims and defenses, establishing that a contractor can appeal a government claim without submitting its own. Denying a contractor the right to defend against a claim on jurisdictional grounds is contrary to the principles of justice and the purpose of the CDA.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict, formalistic interpretation of the Contract Disputes Act's jurisdictional requirements, significantly impacting government contract litigation. It establishes that contractors cannot bypass the CDA's claim submission rules by recharacterizing an affirmative claim (e.g., for a time extension) as a 'defense' to a government action (e.g., assessment of liquidated damages). This ruling places a heavy procedural burden on contractors to file a proper, certified claim for any relief they seek, as failure to do so bars them from raising the underlying issue in court, even in a defensive posture. The decision reinforces the principle that waivers of sovereign immunity are to be narrowly construed, prioritizing procedural compliance over the substantive merits of a contractor's argument.
Unlock the full brief for M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States