1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period

Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.22

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) held that the contractor’s claim, seeking recovery for impacts of over-and-above repair work during contract performance, was timely filed under the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations—rejecting an Air Force Motion for Summary Judgment and granting cross-motions filed on behalf of Lockheed Martin.  Recognizing that a contractor’s claim cannot accrue before the events that fix the liability of the government, the Board held Lockheed Martin’s claim did not have a single accrual date but, rather, multiple accrual dates based upon when the government approved each repair.  The Board separately held that those government approvals represented “the type of single-topic . . . yet repeated and distinct events” making Lockheed Martin’s claims timely under the well-recognized “continuing claim doctrine.”

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177....