United States: Unique Aspects Of Practice Before The Boards Of Contract Appeals – No Interlocutory Appeals

Last Updated: June 15 2017
Article by Kathy Weinberg


Litigation before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals (ASBCA and CBCA, or Boards) involves some unique aspects not found in typical civil cases in federal courts. The differences begin with the ease of filing an appeal with the Boards. Contractors can obtain early discovery with the government's prompt production of the appeal, or "Rule 4," file, which is supposed to – but rarely does – contain all relevant documents. The Boards promote robust, and usually free, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options. While the Boards generally use quick and effective motion practice, they are reluctant to deny litigants their day in court, so motions for summary judgment by either party are rarely successful. During hearings, the Boards employ the Federal Rules of Evidence as a guide, which means judges often admit disputed evidence but say they will give it "the weight it deserves." Pre-hearing briefs are employed to excellent effect, and the presiding judges are well informed about the issues. Three-judge panels, including the hearing judges, decide the appeals.

We will explore some of these differences in more depth in later posts, but here we examine a single aspect of Board procedure: Interlocutory appeals are not available at the ASBCA.

  1. No interlocutory appeals from Board decisions.

In Public Warehousing Co., K.S.C., ASBCA No. 58088 (Mar. 7, 2017), the Board had previously issued orders staying Public Warehousing's appeal due to the pendency of a criminal case in district court and granting the government leave to amend its answer to assert affirmative defenses. Public Warehousing moved the Board to certify these earlier orders for interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"). The Board found that it lacked authority to certify questions for interlocutory appeal.

The Board relied on (1) the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10), which states that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdictions of appeals from "final decisions" of the Boards, and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which grants the courts of appeal jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from district courts but which fails to mention the Boards.

The ASBCA has handled this issue even-handedly, refusing both the government's and contractors' requests that it certify questions for interlocutory appeal. The Public Warehousing case involved a request by a contractor. See also Freightliner Corp., ASBCA No. 42982, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,705 (Board lacks authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify an interlocutory order for appeal to the Federal Circuit). In General Dynamics Ordnance & Tactical Systems, ASBCA Nos. 56870, 56957, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,525, the Board denied a government request to certify an interlocutory order for appeal. The government objected to the release of documents concerning the contractor's competitor but, after in camera review, the Board ordered the government to produce the documents under a protective order. The government asked the Board to certify its order for interlocutory appeal and requested a stay during the appeal. The Board held it had no authority to certify an interlocutory order for review at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and it also declined to issue the requested stay.

The CBCA has never considered a request for an interlocutory order in a published opinion. The IBCA, now subsumed within the CBCA, has refused to certify orders for interlocutory review. Marshall Associated Contrs., Inc., IBCA 1901, 3433-3435, 98-1 B.C.A. ¶ 29,565, 1998 IBCA LEXIS 3; Scott Timber Co., IBCA 3771-97, 98-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 29,555, 1998 IBCA LEXIS 2 at 11 n.1 (Feb. 4 1998). One lone board – the Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals (also subsumed within the CBCA) – certified an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit in Shawn Montee, Inc., AGBCA No. 2004-153-R et al., 05-1 BCA ¶ 32,889. But the Federal Circuit then declined to hear Shawn Montee's board-certified interlocutory appeal in an unpublished decision, avoiding any jurisdictional analysis and stating only that the "better course" would be for the AGBCA to fully adjudicate all issues in the case before the court's appellate review.

  1. What does the Federal Circuit say?

The Federal Circuit has often stated that it lacks jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals. In a line of cases involving appeals from Board decisions on entitlement issues only, the court emphatically insists that it has jurisdiction to hear only appeals from final decisions of a board. Considering an appeal from a Board decision that resolved entitlement but remanded quantum issues to the parties, the court stated: "We have jurisdiction over this appeal, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10)(1994). That section provides for our appellate review "of an appeal from a final decision of an agency board of contract appeals. . . ." AAA Engineering & Drafting, Inc. v. Widnall, 129 F.3d 602 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Without mentioning or analyzing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1), which governs the court's jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, the court determined that a decision on entitlement only was not a "final decision" because the Board continued to assert jurisdiction should the parties fail to agree on quantum. Thus, the court held, it lacked appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Teledyne Continental Motors, General Products Division v. United States, 906 F.2d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also United States v. W.H. Moseley Co., 730 F.2d 1472, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (dismissing appeal from the ASBCA's order directing the contracting officer to issue a decision, the court said, "[I]t is well established that this court, as an appellate tribunal, may review only 'final decisions'.").

In an anomalous 1986 decision, the Federal Circuit expressly held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) from an interlocutory order of the GSBCA under the Brooks Act. Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp. v. General Services Admin. Bd. of Contract Appeals, 792 F.2d 1569, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("EDS Federal"). The court closely examined the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) granting it jurisdiction "of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal under section 1295 of this title." (Emphasis added.) Subsections (a) and (b) cover, inter alia, orders by district courts involving injunctions and interlocutory orders by district courts certified to involve controlling issues of law.

The issue, the court stated, is whether the phrase "described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section" means the nature of orders described in subsections (a) and (b) – specifically, in EDS Federal, orders involving injunctions – or orders that, in addition to being the right type of order, were issued by a district court. Based primarily on one statement in the legislative history of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 that the Act would "give the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction of interlocutory appeals in cases that will otherwise come to it on appeal," the court held that the "described in subsection (a) or (b)" language applied only to the type of order. Thus, the court reasoned it had jurisdiction over appeals from the GSBCA's injunction-related orders in cases that would otherwise come to it on appeal.

The narrow ruling in EDS Federal, which involved an injunction issued by the GSBCA, was that "Injunctive orders from any tribunal within our exclusive appellate jurisdiction fall within the jurisdiction granted to this court by § 1292(c)(1)" (emphasis added). In the Public Warehousing decision, the ASBCA distinguished EDS Federal because it dealt specifically with injunctions, arose under the Brooks Act, and reached the Federal Circuit through a bizarre route involving a federal district court. The Board found that the W.H. Moseley case still controlled with respect to interlocutory Board orders. Thus, the issue seems to be dead at the ASBCA and, most likely, the CBCA as well.

  1. What does this mean for contractors?

The absence of a mechanism for interlocutory review obviously has pros and cons in appeals before the Boards. It removes one source of complexity, making litigation more linear and – perhaps – cheaper and faster, but it deprives any party that must comply with a non-appealable interlocutory order of an important strategic option that conceivably could shorten or simplify the appeal.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions