Reflectone, Inc. v. John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy
60 F.3d 1572 | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Reflectone, a Navy contractor, submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) for additional payment without a pre-existing dispute. The Navy argued this wasn't a valid claim under the Contract Disputes Act because no dispute existed yet. The Federal Circuit reversed, ruling that a contractor can file a claim by making a written demand for payment as a matter of right, even if the government hasn't yet disagreed. This matters because subcontractors can now demand payment for extra work without waiting for the owner to formally dispute the amount.
Key Takeaways
- •You can submit a claim for extra work (like a change order request) without the owner first disagreeing—a written demand for payment is enough to start the dispute resolution process.
- •Document your demand clearly: state the amount owed, explain why you're entitled to it, and make it clear you're demanding payment as a contractual right, not just asking a question.
- •This ruling applies to non-routine claims (like change orders), not routine payment requests, so understand which category your demand falls into before submitting.
FAR 33.201 does not require a pre-existing dispute for non-routine claims.
Frequently Asked Question
Do I have to wait for the owner to disagree before I can file a claim for extra work?
No. You can file a claim by submitting a written demand for payment as a matter of right, even if the owner hasn't yet disputed the amount. The demand itself creates the claim—you don't need a pre-existing disagreement. Just make sure your demand clearly states the amount owed and explains why you're entitled to it.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.