this was one of those unique cases that i've ever been involved in in relationship to the contract administration of the case the government knew at the beginning that there were serious defects in the technical data records that would prevent the contractor from perform the contractor believe that there were serious defects in the technical data package and were raised those with a girl the government contracting officer went to her technical people and the technical people told the contracting officer to take in take a package and that was perfect there's no problem with it you can you can compete with a contract had been award performance so on couldn't begin because of problems with the data package and it was a just a litany of conversations between the contracting officer and the contractor and of course i was involved in some of these as as it went along and we had an extreme difficulty getting the technical group to understand that there were problems with the technical data package and frankly there was other than these  claim deals with the wheel spinning costs that the contractor went to my client went through it and we were to accommodate all of these potential fixes that the government had to proposed the technical people were trying to get this country performed and we were trying to reform it you know we spent an enormous winter time in that process all that has  been has been audited the government disputes that we were entitled to the additional money but that's that's not the issue that we have in the case here the issue in the case here is the statute of limitations and with respect to the statute of limitations it's my contention that there was no imperils which is were quire but impasses require there was no impair until some time in two thousand and five we would follow the originally with mr slim and after those determinations for convenience we go it discovered that there was serious defects in the the statue of limitations is six years begin to run from the point at which everything is fixed that the contractor knows that they have a right to file the client for us to for us to be able to where we are continually asked for a terminations for convenience germination for convenience is finally granted so until we have a situation where the the contracting officer mistress limits makes a final decision says you're not entitled to anything else that's where the impasse arises and once that impasse arises the statue limitations began of what this case is about at this juncture is strictly an issue with respect to the statute of limitations and whether or not we would have a right to continue to earth of the appeal to the board of contract feels it there was a lot harsher correspondence it went back and forth between partners but as the as that as the case proceeded  contract that this contract would be a possible to perform so what's let a current contract was terminated for convenience we submitted determination a settlement proposal and mr sl the quarter federal claims did not have jurisdiction they argued that and crew that was in their motions we opposed to their motions i had discussions with the justice department warder and she conv faith claims except after it was fall in the united states for a federal plan to us that the government argued that there was no jurisdiction because it had not been presented to the the claims to the contracting office for or a final decision as a result of that there was a joint stipulation of dismissal based on to say two eighty two eighty one or something like that it is three sixteen this is not a request for a voluntary dismissal it is it is a joint stipulation by the united states and by myself that the court of federal points to us not have jurisdiction but it's not just me asking for a voluntary dismiss so when you went back to the contracting office in resists the first time that the contracting officer asked to render a final decision on all of the things that ever was arguing about and right that's correct on all of within a contract price and in this instance contract price was somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand dollars we had submitted a claim to mr slim slim's for seven hundred or eight hundred thousand dollars seven thousand dollars bond our position is that since he since he had no authority to settle a claim over the contract price he had no authority to to settle any portion of this coin he lacked authority by virtue of the regulations and the per curiam contract an officer never gave him the authority to settle the entire contract claim he didn't have authority to settle he couldn't settle the part he agreed to and he couldn't so the part that he did not of which was over the contra price so i treat  theory that the contract off your final decision is essentially a no a t with respect to any appeal rights that we have so we took all of the other all of the coins contracting officer reviewed the claims and did nine those claims we then appealed to the board of contract appeals within the statutory ninety day period which is what gets us here that case was reviewed by a judge freeman judge freeman decided that because there was a sensually an impasse in february of two thousand starting with the one that was filed first the terminations that i'm claiming the reason why that one is you cannot pursue this state is because it was not pursued after the original opportunity at the court of federal claims what happened factually is that  when the contracts terminated for convenience to the contractor submitted terminations settlement which was not at that time a claim subsequently the contracting officer in march of two thousand and five issued a final decision is determination contracting officer the parties stipulate to dismiss the case not in the manner they counsels described there were two different parts to that stipulation dismissal based on the government's argument with the government had done in that case was filed a motion both for dismissal or in the alternative for s it says the government filed this motion or just missed or an alternative for summary judgment based in part on the premise that the court could not have jurisdiction that's paragraph one of the stipulation are you saying that the government of this with its fingers crossed reaching as the course is described the stipulation is only talking about with respect to jurisdiction from the government's viewpoint because the stipulation sets up both parties feel points the government's view point was that as described in this motion to dismiss which was only some of the claims are have jurisdictional problems and then the remainder were based on fifty six motion and then paragraph four the plaintiff recites its feeling which is that the plaintiff has discovered so if i understand his argument correctly the government says we've got tips that you've got just this for lack of jurisdiction because the contracting officer didn't consider this letter and then he goes back to the contracting officer and the contracting off considers that and then it goes to the see the da and they say we're just waiting and you went to the contracting officer too late you couldn't go back at night in two thousand and five two thousand where you should have gone to the contracting office or in two thousand and one  there were the actual adjustment claims that were thrown in with the court of federal claims suit and that but and that was a much different set of claims and what you see in the actual just that there was some it in two thousand and one magnitude of ten right i mean well what the government is position is that the claim accrued in two thousand and one that started the six year limitation cruel to reclaim year after all the elements finally finished so that you could go into court or forward and you're saying that they could have done that in two thousand and one even though they had barely begun the negotiations yes they could have been and the fact that negotiations should have and that the situation and if they had filed suit in two thousand and one  right and well they could have submitted their claim under the contract disputes that they have to go through both stages for the record bill just didn't claim so first they have to submit to the contracting officer once they get the contracting officers decision or there's a denial of what is there is the statute of limitations going to the presentation they claim that the contracting officer is an empath made it pearl know that the impasse only applies to the settlement terminations claim because under the elop case what the court with this court said was that a settlement terminations claim is not itself or proposal is not itself a claim because it's missing when i and that is a request for contracting officers decision once the parties which impacts on the settlement determination settlement claim the contra end which is usually indicated by the contracting officers decision that's the take it or leave it or go to another board or court once that occurs then you have the rule of limitations there that's on the subtle determination settlement side on the actual just inside were just under a plain vanilla law contract disputes that claim which is presented to the contract officer which is within that period of time the board found began ran in november of two thousand and one there's certainly a basis to find it ran earlier but if it's not necessary for this analysis that d council and i could have spoken on the phone yesterday and say let's go ahead and settle the claim but for purposes of getting jurisdiction in either the board of the court it has to be presented to the contracting officer with the sanity contract well if you have to be presented within six years and then decided by the contracting officer within the time limits of the contract disputes or not at all and then it can be appealed as a deem denial and so but the critical period of time here for the for the edible adjustment claim is once on the claim accrued is the form of the fines they know they've been damaged in actually have to have damage but they know they've been damaged which the board found occurred in november of two thousand and one the six year clock started and what didn't happen was any time during those six years the  contractor and it was a very simple to ease and easy thing to do could have submitted those claims of contracting officer for decision they sat on their hands they allowed six and a half years to pass and their rights went away and so they are barred by the statute of limitations on  will just mcclain because of that remark in a record two thousand and four communication where they specifically said that they were entitled to more than the contract price for an actor or johnson that's not sufficient it is not sufficient because it's not a claim that was part of the demanding one of the terminations letters it was the two thousand and four he said yes and what would have had to have happened there the contract dispute second order for that to be a claim it would have had to have met all the requirements for some sort of matter of right and so forth but then also ask for a contracting officers decision on that equitable adjustment and that's not what happened now remember there's two sets of equable just one things that was that the smaller one that was being bandied around in the zero four time period what is being claimed in two thousand a just saying it's never it would never fly it can't possibly apply i guess i can't see why you'd ever get to that circumstance because the impasse is necessary under the elop case to turn a settlement terminations proposal into a claim on an equitable adjustment there is nothing ever turned into a claim it just has to be a claim that has to meet the the very plainly stated requirements of this the contract disputes act in the for which are th you submitted a claim for some certain ask for a contracting officers decision there's no need to inject a discussion of an impasse because the contracting contractors who are in tells you what it is that you have to submit but it's unclear under the f decided you know many years ago but that's not what happened and so the basic point here is there's two separate things they're both defective for different reasons and it's important to track them separately and to look at the time periods for each separately and to the extent that there would be any inequity here there simply isn't obviously you can look at that for purposes of of the contract disputes act however it was really always in the hands of the claim here if they wanted to bring a seven point five million dollars claim in this four hundred thousand dollars contract they could have done it all they had to do was write a letter of the contracting officer tell them about it and ask for a decision they never did that until the time it come and gone to more than six years later and for those reasons every time we went to the contracting officer with complaints about the technical data package we got the opportunity of a solution on one occasion the government was going to provide imperfections on the drawing and machine doesn't know how to do it we tried for three and a half years to actually show they're on the drawing us they finally came to my office in august of two thousand and three we laid the we're trying to solve this problem we can get this contract perform we want you to perform this contract so from that perspective the idea that there was a point in time earlier than two thousand and four two thousand and three two thousand and five that we could have presumed to claim is just simply ridiculous so you're saying that sometime in two thousand and three that line but that that means year two thousand and eight claim for the defective specifications and other things which were not properly included in the terminations settlement proposal now the one of the other issues that i think really important here is that all of the claims that i submitted in of the the two thousand and eight equitable adjustment plan were not submitted early good those claims are officer for which we dismissed the court of federal claims case we went back there homework came back together with a with a pretty solid claim that the contracting officer deny it so all but by this trauma nation this this idea that we're outside the statute of limitations i'm getting excluded from the opportunity to present all of the claims that were not properly present the terminations of this contract i didn't know didn't have the authority to settle the rest of it but because of the adventure of the quarter federal claims we ultimately ended up submitting our later