Declaratory Relief Under the Cda: Post Garrett
| Publication year | 1998 |
| Pages | 26 |
| Citation | Vol. 11 No. 5 Pg. 26 |
Paul A. Reynolds, Paul A. Reynolds, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
The material in this article represents the view of the author and does not represent the views of the federal agency to which the author is affiliated.
Parties in disagreement over the interpretation which should be placed on an event in contract performance sometimes consider seeking declaratory relief under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).[1] An inspection of the act might encourage this course, because the language suggests that declaratory relief is available. However, the judiciary historically has been reluctant to declare the rights of the parties. In Garrett v. General Electric Co. ,[2] the Federal Circuit Court agreed with the Board that the Board had jurisdiction of a non monetary, post-acceptance order of the Navy to correct deficient parts at no cost to the Government. The lengthy dissenting opinion suggested that the case might be a jurisdictional "barn opener."[3]
Subsequent litigation suggests that the Board and the Court of Federal Claims intend to preserve the tradition of judicial restraint in granting declaratory relief under CDA.
II. THE ACT
The Contract Appeals Boards and the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction to decide cases involving disputes between the Government and its contractors. This judicial power is derived from the CDA. The statute indicates that disputes take the form of "claims," and the agency Contracting Officers will make "decisions" on the claims which will serve to frame the scope of any dispute.[4] The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),[5] and the Federal Courts Administration Act,[6] contain refinements to the "claim" concept. "Claim" is defined in the FAR as:"... [A] written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract."[7]
The language "interpretation of contract terms" clearly suggests the availability of declaratory relief. As regards the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, the availability of declaratory relief is now explicit:
"The Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim by or against, or dispute with, a contractor arising under section 10(4) (1) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, including a dispute concerning termination of a contract, rights in tangible or intangible property, compliance with cost accounting standards, and other non monetary disputes on which a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of that Act."[8]
Again, the language suggests that the court may decide a claim for declaratory relief.
III. CASELAW
The scope of these provisions has been tested. In Garrett v. General Electric Co. ,[9] the Federal Circuit sustained the ASBCA decision to decide on appeal of a Navy non monetary, post-acceptance direction to the contractor to correct deficient parts at no cost to the Government. The court interpreted the direction as "other relief," and therefore a "claim" under the FAR definition.[10] The court, therefore, decided that the Board had correctly determined its jurisdiction.
After accepting engines delivered under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial