U.S. Code » Title 41 » Subtitle Subtitle III— Contract Disputes › Chapter CHAPTER 71— CONTRACT DISPUTES

41 U.S.C. § 7104

Contractor’s right of appeal from decision by contracting officer

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Appeal to Agency Board.—A contractor, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a contracting officer’s decision under section 7103 of this title, may appeal the decision to an agency board as provided in section 7105 of this title.(b)Bringing an Action De Novo in Federal Court.—(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), and in lieu of appealing the decision of a contracting officer under section 7103 of this title to an agency board, a contractor may bring an action directly on the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims, notwithstanding any contract provision, regulation, or rule of law to the contrary.(2)Tennessee valley authority.—In the case of an action against the Tennessee Valley Authority, the contractor may only bring an action directly on the claim in a district court of the United States pursuant to section 1337 of title 28, notwithstanding any contract provision, regulation, or rule of law to the contrary.(3)Time for filing.—A contractor shall file any action under paragraph (1) or (2) within 12 months from the date of receipt of a contracting officer’s decision under section 7103 of this title.(4)De novo.—An action under paragraph (1) or (2) shall proceed de novo in accordance with the rules of the appropriate court.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3820.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

7104(a)

41:606.

Pub. L. 95–563, § 7, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2385.

7104(b)

41:609(a).

Pub. L. 95–563, § 10(a), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2388; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 161(10), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 49.

In subsection (a), the words “of contract appeals” are omitted as unnecessary because of the definition of “agency board” in section 7101 of the revised title.

In subsection (b)(1), the words “United States Court of Federal Claims” are substituted for “United States Claims Court” because of section 902(b)(1) of the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–572, 106 Stat. 4516, 28 U.S.C. 171 note).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 336 cases (106 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: The Minesen Co. v. McHugh, 671 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Minesen Co. v. McHugh, 671 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 10× “to the contrary,” 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b). The Wunderlich Act’s “narrow” focus on preventing CO deci- sions from being unreviewable does not inform our under- standing of congressional intent regarding appeals from the impartial ASBCA to this court.”
Creative Mgmt. Servs. v. United States, 989 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “Because the complaint was not timely filed within the twelve-month statute of limitations established by the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(3), we affirm. BACKGROUND I In July 2009, Creative Management Services, LLC, d/b/a MC-2 (MC-2) was awarded Government Services…”
Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs, Inc. v. United States, 809 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b).” On January 7, 2014, Guardian Angels brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims.”
Council for Tribal Emp. Rights v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 5× “41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(1). 7 The government asserts that the Council’s claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no valid contracts were entered between the Council and the Office.”
Redland Co. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 736 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 3× “at 3820 (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)) (authorizing suit if the CO fails to issue a decision within the time periods specified in 41 U.”
Boeing Co. v. United States, 119 F.4th 17 (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “Boeing asserted that the trial court had jurisdiction under the CDA ( 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(1)), or, in the alterna- tive, under the Tucker Act (§ 1491(a)(1)).”
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 38 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 4× “§ 1491 (a)(2) and 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b) on December 8, 2009.”
United Aeronautical Corp. v. Usaf, 80 F.4th 1017 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1491 (a)(2); 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(1), and (2) agency boards of contract appeals, 41 U.”
Securiforce Int'l Am., LLC v. United States, 879 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “§ 1491 (a)(2); 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(1). Because the CDA does not define “claim,” we look to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), which defines a claim as “a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of…”
Palafox Street Assocs., L.P. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 3× “See 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (a)-(b)(l) (2012). A contractor is compelled to make a forum choice because the election doctrine precludes the appeal of a claim in both fora.”
A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 95 N.E.3d 547 (Mass. 2018). “§ 1295 (a)(3) ; 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (b)(1). 7 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the requirement for "well-nigh, irrefragable proof" approximates the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.”
Metcalf Constr. Co. v. United States, 742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “§ 609 (2006) (later recodified at 41 U.S.C. § 7104 , see Public Contracts Act of Jan.”
Show all 336 citing cases →
— 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b) — 2 cases
Nussbaum v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
— 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(3) — 1 case
Woodruff v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 761 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
— 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(l) — 1 case
Arab Shah Constr. Co. (A.S.B.C.A. 2016).
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.