Bonneville Associates v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
30 Fed. Cl. 85 (1993)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Bonneville Associates (plaintiff) entered into a dual-purpose contract with the General Services Agency (GSA) (defendant) to repair and sell an apartment building in Las Vegas, Nevada. During performance, Bonneville and the GSA were unable to resolve disputes over various aspects of the repair work, which resulted in the GSA issuing a final decision demanding approximately $5 million from Bonneville to correct alleged deficiencies. The GSA’s final decision included a notice of Bonneville’s right to appeal the GSA’s adverse decision to either the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) or to the Court of Federal Claims. Bonneville initially appealed to the Board. However, Bonneville then withdrew its appeal to the Board and refiled its appeal with the Court of Federal Claims. The GSA filed a motion to dismiss Bonneville’s Court of Federal Claims appeal, arguing that, under the Election Doctrine, the Court of Federal Claims did not have jurisdiction over Bonneville’s appeal because Bonneville had previously filed its appeal with the Board. Bonneville challenged, arguing that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear Bonneville’s appeal because the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), which governed the Board’s jurisdiction rights, specifically did not apply to contracts, like Bonneville’s, that involved the procurement of existing real property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Margolis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
