Notes of Decisions
Sarang Corp. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 560 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 5× “See 31 U.S.C. § 3907 (a) (“A claim for an interest penalty not paid under .”
George Sollitt Constr. Co. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “31 U.S.C. § 3907 . Thus, the interest penalty provided by the Prompt Payment Act is not available to a contractor for payments for which the government has disputed its liability.”
Env't Saf. Consultants, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 77 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 2× “25 Here, because there is a clear dispute between the parties as to whether plaintiffs are entitled to payment on plaintiffs’ contracts with the Navy, the USACE and the NPS, the PPA does not apply, and any claims plaintiffs assert under 31 U.”
Gutz v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 291 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” 31 U.S.C. § 3907 (c). In that situation, a claim for interest is subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.”
Modeer v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 131 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“31 U.S.C. § 3907 . Thus, the interest penalty provided by the Prompt Payment Act is not available to a contractor, in this case a lessor, when the claimed payment amount is in dispute.”
Laurelwood Homes LLC v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 290 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The relevant provision of the PPA for the inquiry here provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Except as provided in section 3904 of this title, this chapter does not require an interest penalty on payment that is not made because of a dispute between the head of an agency and…”
S. Comfort Builders, Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 124 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“31 U.S.C. § 3907 (c). Discussing this provision, the legislative history to the Prompt Payment Act indicates: The act’s protections apply only when there is no dispute relating to a contractor’s performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.”
CPT Corp. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 451 (Ct. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” 31 U.S.C. § 3907 (c) (1988). In this case, since no dispute existed between the parties, interest under the PPA may be appropriate.”
GPA-I, LP v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 762 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
“” 31 U.S.C. § 3907 (a). . The standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses (applicable to contracts with invoices) allows the government 30 days from receipt of an invoice to pay, see 48 C.”
Inversa, S.A. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 245 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
“31 U.S.C. § 3907 (c) (emphasis added). The Plaintiffs argue that the language of the PPA addresses only two narrow types of disputes: situations in which liability for a payment is conceded but the dollar amount of the payment is disputed or, citing legislative history, disputes…”
Bay Cnty., Florida v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 131 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
· cites it 6× “31 U.S.C. § 3907 . Both parties agreed that one year of interest under the PPA accrued on the undisputed amount, given the express terms of Subparagraph 3907(b)(1)(B).”
— 31 U.S.C. § 3907(c) — 2 cases
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.