Pa. Cons. Stat. » 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. (PROCUREMENT) / Chapter 17
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724 (2026)

 Jurisdiction.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1724.  Jurisdiction.

(a)  Exclusive jurisdiction.--The board shall have exclusive jurisdiction to arbitrate claims arising from all of the following:

(1)  A contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency in accordance with this part and filed with the board in accordance with section 1712.1 (relating to contract controversies).

(2)  A written agreement executed by a Commonwealth agency and the Office of Attorney General in which the parties expressly agree to utilize the board to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreement.

(3)  Unless otherwise provided by law, a contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency involving real property interests in which the Commonwealth agency is the respondent.

(b)  Concurrent jurisdiction.--The board shall have concurrent jurisdiction to arbitrate claims arising from all of the following:

(1)  A contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency in accordance with this part in which the Commonwealth agency is the claimant.

(2)  Unless otherwise provided by law, a contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency involving real property interests in which the Commonwealth agency is the claimant.

(c)  Limitations.--The board shall have no power and exercise no jurisdiction over a claim asserted under subsection (a)(1) unless it is filed with the board in accordance with section 1712.1. The board shall have no power and exercise no jurisdiction over a claim asserted against a Commonwealth agency under subsection (a)(2) or (3) unless the claim was filed with the board within six months after it accrued. The board shall have no power and exercise no jurisdiction over claims for payment or damages to providers of medical assistance services arising out of the operation of the medical assistance program established by the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code.

(d)  Nonmonetary relief.--Nothing in this section shall preclude a party from seeking nonmonetary relief in another forum as provided by law.

 

References in Text.  The short title of the act of June 13, 1967, P.L.31, No.21, known as the Public Welfare Code, referred to in subsection (c), was amended by the act of December 28, 2015, P.L.500, No.92. The amended short title is now the Human Services Code.

Cross References.  Section 1724 is referred to in section 1725 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). · cites it 14× “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers' Ins. Fund, 35 A.3d 849 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). · cites it 12× “Section 4 provided: The Board of Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy amounts to $300.”
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 6× “The panel concluded: Because Scientific Games is only seeking to validate the contract between it and DGS and is not seeking monetary damages, DGS’ and GTECH’s preliminary objection that Scientific Games’ complaint fails for failure to bring the matter before the Board of Claims…”
Telwell Inc. v. Grandbridge Real Est. Capital LLC, 143 A.3d 421 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Grandbridge and PSERS alleged that, under the Commonwealth Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724, the Board of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction to hear all contract claims against Commonwealth agencies.”
James J. Gory Mech. Contracting, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 855 A.2d 669 (Pa. 2004). · cites it 2× “There is nothing ambiguous about the Philadelphia Housing Authority's enabling statute—it is designated as "an agency of the Commonwealth." 35 P.S. § 1550. As such, (because it qualifies under one of the exceptions to the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction), jurisdiction…”
Telwell, Inc. v. Pub. Sch. Employees' Ret. Sys., 88 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). · cites it 5× “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724. Prior to Act 142, the Board of Claims Act described the Board as having “exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy…”
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 34 A.3d 307 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “7 In response to this complaint, DGS and GTECH each filed preliminary objections 8 that are before us contending that: • Scientific Games’ complaint should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction over whether there is a valid contract because sole jurisdiction lies…”
Dep't of Gen. Servs. v. Pittsburgh Bldg. Co., 920 A.2d 973 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1). The Board, however, has “no power and [may] exercise no jurisdiction over a claim .”
Dubaskas v. Commonwealth, 81 A.3d 167 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Board's general grant of jurisdiction is now located in Section 1724 of the Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724. . This Court’s review of an order of the Board sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing a complaint is limited to determining whether the Board abused its discretion…”
Brimmeier v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm'n, 147 A.3d 954 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “The Board of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to arbitrate claims arising from “[a] contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency _” 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Employers Ins. v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 865 A.2d 825 (Pa. 2005). “§ 4651-4 is now covered in 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1), which is, in relevant part, substantively identical to the repealed section.”
Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 877 A.2d 419 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “[11] See 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(c) ("The board shall have no power and exercise no jurisdiction over claims for payment or damages to providers of medical assistance services arising out of the operation of the medical assistance program").”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(a) — 11 cases
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013). “The panel concluded: Because Scientific Games is only seeking to validate the contract between it and DGS and is not seeking monetary damages, DGS’ and GTECH’s preliminary objection that Scientific Games’ complaint fails for failure to bring the matter before the Board of Claims…”
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 34 A.3d 307 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “7 In response to this complaint, DGS and GTECH each filed preliminary objections 8 that are before us contending that: • Scientific Games’ complaint should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction over whether there is a valid contract because sole jurisdiction lies…”
Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers' Ins. Fund, 35 A.3d 849 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “Section 4 provided: The Board of Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy amounts to $300.”
Texas Keystone Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Resources, 851 A.2d 228 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
New Foundations, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Gen. Servs., 893 A.2d 826 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(a)(1) — 19 cases
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers' Ins. Fund, 35 A.3d 849 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “Section 4 provided: The Board of Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy amounts to $300.”
Brimmeier v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm'n, 147 A.3d 954 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “The Board of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to arbitrate claims arising from “[a] contract entered into by a Commonwealth agency _” 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Employers Ins. v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 865 A.2d 825 (Pa. 2005). “§ 4651-4 is now covered in 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1), which is, in relevant part, substantively identical to the repealed section.”
Dep't of Gen. Servs. v. Pittsburgh Bldg. Co., 920 A.2d 973 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1). The Board, however, has “no power and [may] exercise no jurisdiction over a claim .”
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(a)(2) — 1 case
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(a)(3) — 3 cases
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Telwell, Inc. v. Pub. Sch. Employees' Ret. Sys., 88 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724. Prior to Act 142, the Board of Claims Act described the Board as having “exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy…”
Banacol Mktg. Corp. v. Penn Warehousing & Distrib., Inc., 904 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(b) — 1 case
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(c) — 9 cases
Roe v. Pennsylvania Game Comm'n, 147 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “”10 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 877 A.2d 419 (Pa. 2005). “[11] See 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(c) ("The board shall have no power and exercise no jurisdiction over claims for payment or damages to providers of medical assistance services arising out of the operation of the medical assistance program").”
Dep't of Gen. Servs. v. Pittsburgh Bldg. Co., 920 A.2d 973 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a)(1). The Board, however, has “no power and [may] exercise no jurisdiction over a claim .”
Baptist Home of Philadelphia v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 910 A.2d 760 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
Manor at St. Luke Vill. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 72 A.3d 308 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(d) — 4 cases
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013). “The panel concluded: Because Scientific Games is only seeking to validate the contract between it and DGS and is not seeking monetary damages, DGS’ and GTECH’s preliminary objection that Scientific Games’ complaint fails for failure to bring the matter before the Board of Claims…”
Durkee Lumber Co. v. Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Resources, 903 A.2d 593 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
Telwell, Inc. v. Pub. Sch. Employees' Ret. Sys., 88 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “62 Pa.C.S. § 1724. Prior to Act 142, the Board of Claims Act described the Board as having “exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy…”
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 34 A.3d 307 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “7 In response to this complaint, DGS and GTECH each filed preliminary objections 8 that are before us contending that: • Scientific Games’ complaint should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction over whether there is a valid contract because sole jurisdiction lies…”
— 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1724(e) — 1 case
Sci. Games Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013). “The panel concluded: Because Scientific Games is only seeking to validate the contract between it and DGS and is not seeking monetary damages, DGS’ and GTECH’s preliminary objection that Scientific Games’ complaint fails for failure to bring the matter before the Board of Claims…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.