Category: The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Sum Certain

Stephanie M. Harden and Shane M. Hannon ●

Appeal of Samho Enterprise, ASBCA No. 63587 (Aug. 13, 2025)

The Bottom Line: The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) requires that if a contractor submits a claim for payment to the Government, the claim must include a “sum certain”—with the emphasis on “certain.” Here, the contractor submitted a claim for damages after the Government declined to exercise the contract’s first option year. The contractor submitted a claim for “no less than” $326,276. The claim’s qualifying language—“no less than”—meant the claim did not state a sum certain. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) therefore dismissed the contractor’s appeal.

Key points of interest:

  • A sum certain is a mandatory element of a CDA claim. If a contractor’s claim fails to state a sum certain, the contracting officer may deny the claim on that basis, and the Board may dismiss any subsequent appeals for failing to state a claim.
  • Using qualifying language to describe the requested amount does not constitute a sum certain. If a claim characterizes its requested amount with qualifying language, like “approximately,” “to be determined,” or “in excess of,” the claim does not state a sum certain under the CDA.
  • Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s 2023 decision in ECC International Constructors, the “sum certain” requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
  • The contractor’s appeal also asked the Board to order the agency to exercise the contract’s option year. The Board reiterated it does not have jurisdiction over requests for specific performance.

Contractors submitting claims for monetary relief must include a “sum certain,” not a “sum approximate.” Failure to state a sum certain is fatal to a claim.

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Act of God or Compensable Delay?

Stephanie M. Harden ●

Welcome to The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates, a new series covering what contractors should know about recent cost and pricing disputes—without the long read!

For our inaugural post, we present:

Appeal of Gideon Contracting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63561 (May 12, 2025)

The Bottom Line: When the Government orders a suspension of work due to an “act of God,” it may still be on the hook for the resulting increased costs under the Suspension of Work clause if it proximately causes an unreasonable delay. Here, the Government proximately caused the delay at issue through its management of water drainage through a lake and dam, including through controlled releases of water, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) found a portion of the delay to be unreasonable.

Key points of interest:

  • Generally, “acts of God” entitle contractors to additional time, but not additional compensation. However, the distinguishing feature entitling Gideon to additional compensation here was that the Government controlled the release of floodwaters via a drainage management system. Thus, the flooding was not caused solely by rainfall, as the Government argued, but rather, by the Government’s release of floodwater.
  • Gideon was not entitled to damages for the entire suspension period, however, because the contract specified when and how water releases would occur. Therefore, Gideon was only entitled to compensation for portions of the suspension that were found to be “unreasonable” (or as described by the Board, inexplicable).

Contractors facing suspensions of work should carefully evaluate whether their contracts may entitle them to relief where at least a portion of such suspensions are “unreasonable.”

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%