41 U.S.C. § 7107

Judicial review of agency board decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Review.—(1)In general.—The decision of an agency board is final, except that—(A) a contractor may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 120 days from the date the contractor receives a copy of the decision; or(B) if an agency head determines that an appeal should be taken, the agency head, with the prior approval of the Attorney General, may transmit the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for judicial review under section 1295 of title 28, within 120 days from the date the agency receives a copy of the decision.(2)Tennessee valley authority.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a decision of the board of contract appeals of the Tennessee Valley Authority is final, except that—(A) a contractor may appeal the decision to a United States district court pursuant to section 1337 of title 28, within 120 days from the date the contractor receives a copy of the decision; or(B) the Tennessee Valley Authority may appeal the decision to a United States district court pursuant to section 1337 of title 28, within 120 days from the date of the decision.(3)Review of arbitration.—An award by an arbitrator under this chapter shall be reviewed pursuant to sections 9 to 13 of title 9, except that the court may set aside or limit any award that is found to violate limitations imposed by Federal statute.(b)Finality of Agency Board Decisions on Questions of Law and Fact.—Notwithstanding any contract provision, regulation, or rule of law to the contrary, in an appeal by a contractor or the Federal Government from the decision of an agency board pursuant to subsection (a)—(1) the decision of the agency board on a question of law is not final or conclusive; but(2) the decision of the agency board on a question of fact is final and conclusive and may not be set aside unless the decision is—(A) fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious;(B) so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith; or(C) not supported by substantial evidence.(c)Remand.—In an appeal by a contractor or the Federal Government from the decision of an agency board pursuant to subsection (a), the court may render an opinion and judgment and remand the case for further action by the agency board or by the executive agency as appropriate, with direction the court considers just and proper.(d)Consolidation.—If 2 or more actions arising from one contract are filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims and one or more agency boards, for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, the United States Court of Federal Claims may order the consolidation of the actions in that court or transfer any actions to or among the agency boards involved.(e)Judgments as to Fewer Than All Claims or Parties.—In an action filed pursuant to this chapter involving 2 or more claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims, and where a portion of one of the claims can be divided for purposes of decision or judgment, and in any action where multiple parties are involved, the court, whenever appropriate, may enter a judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or portions of claims or parties.(f)Advisory Opinions.—(1)In general.—Whenever an action involving an issue described in paragraph (2) is pending in a district court of the United States, the district court may request an agency board to provide the court with an advisory opinion on the matters of contract interpretation under consideration.(2)Applicable issue.—An issue referred to in paragraph (1) is any issue that could be the proper subject of a final decision of a contracting officer appealable under this chapter.(3)Referral to agency board with jurisdiction.—A district court shall direct a request under paragraph (1) to the agency board having jurisdiction under this chapter to adjudicate appeals of contract claims under the contract being interpreted by the court.(4)Timely response.—After receiving a request for an advisory opinion under paragraph (1), an agency board shall provide the advisory opinion in a timely manner to the district court making the request.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3824.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
7107(a)	41:607(g).	Pub. L. 95–563, § 8(g), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2387; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 156, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 47; Pub. L. 101–552, § 6(b), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2746.
7107(b)	41:609(b).	Pub. L. 95–563, § 10(b), (e), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2388.
7107(c)	41:609(c).	Pub. L. 95–563, § 10(c), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2388; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 157, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 47.
7107(d)	41:609(d).	Pub. L. 95–563, § 10(d), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2388; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 160(a)(15), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 48.
7107(e)	41:609(e).
7107(f)	41:609(f).	Pub. L. 95–563, § 10(f), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title II, § 2354, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3323.

In subsection (a)(1)(B), the words “may transmit” are substituted for “transmits” to correct the grammatical structure of the provision in accordance with the probable intent of Congress. The words “the decision” are substituted for “the decision of the board of contract appeals” and for “the board’s decision” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency with 41:607(g)(1)(A).

In subsection (a)(2)(B), the words “in any case” are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (d), 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).

In subsection (f)(1), (3), and (4), the words “agency board” are substituted for “board of contract appeals” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency with the definition of “agency board” in section 7101 of the revised title.

In subsection (f)(1), the words “under consideration” are substituted for “at issue” to avoid potential confusion with the words “issue described in paragraph (2)”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 103 cases (53 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 18× “Minesen instead contends that it could not legally consent to waive its statutory right under 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a) to an appeal before the Federal Circuit.”

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016). “§ 1295 (a)(3) ; 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1) ; see 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1(d).”

Sharp Elec. Corp. v. Army, 707 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “§ 1295 (a)(10) and 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1). DISCUSSION In accordance with the CDA, 41 U.”

Lee's Ford Dock, Inc. v. Sec'y of the Army, 865 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1). The government argues that we lack jurisdiction over LFD’s appeal because the Board lacked jurisdiction to enter a final decision under the CDA.”

Palafox Street Assocs., L.P. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 18 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 10× “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, RCFC 12(b)(1); Election Doctrine; 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (d); 41 U.S.C. § 7103 (e); 48 C.”

Agility Logistics Servs. Co. KSC v. Mattis, 887 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “" 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (b). As it did before the Board, Agility argues that the Board had jurisdiction under the CDA and the Board's charter.”

The Boeing Co. v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 983 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “The parties agreed that “the Board’s decision on Boe- ing’s motion for summary judgment decided the only issue presented,” and they jointly requested that the Board enter final judgment denying Boeing’s appeals of the COFDs.”

United Aeronautical Corp. v. Usaf, 80 F.4th 1017 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1295(a)(3), (b); 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1). Through § 1491(a)(2)’s “arising under” language, the scope of the CDA’s sovereign-immunity waiver and jurisdictional grant is expressly tied to the scope of the administrative system that it creates.”

Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, 699 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “41 U.S.C. § 7107 (b); Former Employees of Sonoco Prods.”

Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1)(A) (formerly 41 U.”

Garco Constr., Inc. v. Sec'y of the Army, 856 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 1295 (a)(10) and 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(1). DISCUSSION On appeal, Garco raises two narrow issues, which we address in turn below: (1) that Maj.”

Parsons Global Ex Rel. Odell Intern. v. Mchugh, 677 F.3d 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7107 (b)(1), we review decisions by the Board on questions of law de novo.”

Show all 103 citing cases →

— 41 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

Baldridge v. Gov't Printing Off., 513 F. App'x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

— 41 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1) — 1 case

Baldridge v. Gov't Printing Off., 513 F. App'x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

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.