Court of Federal Claims Lawyer — Paid Consultation on a Claim Against the United States
A paid consultation with Sherrod Seward, Esq. on Tucker Act jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491 and on getting to the right court the first time.
The Court of Federal Claims is where money claims against the United States go, and the two questions worth answering before anything is filed are whether your claim belongs there and which six-year period applies to it — because there are two, they come from different statutes, and they do not start at the same moment. A contract claim that has already been through a contracting officer is governed by one clock; a claim founded directly on the Constitution, a statute or a regulation is governed by another. You will leave the call knowing which description fits, what the court is able to award if you win, and what it cannot.
Prefer to speak to someone first? +1 (202) 999-3631
Request the consultation
Six fields. About a minute.
Bring the call one of these
- You have a money claim against a federal agency and do not know which court hears it.
- A contracting officer issued a final decision and you are considering the court rather than a board.
- Your dispute is about a termination or contract interpretation with no dollar figure attached.
- You are worried the limitations period has run and need to know which one applies.
- You were told to sue in district court and want that checked before anything is filed.
- You want to know what the court can award before spending money finding out.
Two six-year periods, and they are not interchangeable
28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) gives the court jurisdiction over any claim against the United States founded on the Constitution, an Act of Congress, an executive department's regulation, or an express or implied contract with the United States, together with damages in cases not sounding in tort. For claims in that general category, 28 U.S.C. 2501 bars the petition unless it is filed "within six years after such claim first accrues". A contract claim that has gone through the Contract Disputes Act is on a different footing: 1491(a)(2) reaches disputes arising under 41 U.S.C. 7104(b)(1) expressly, including a dispute about termination of a contract and other nonmonetary disputes on which a contracting officer has decided — and there the governing period is the twelve months from receipt of that decision in 41 U.S.C. 7104(b)(3), not the six years in 2501. Which one applies is a question about what kind of claim you have, and it is the first thing the call establishes. Two further limits are worth knowing early: 1491(c) removes claims against, or founded on the conduct of, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a Contract Disputes Act action against TVA goes to a district court under 28 U.S.C. 1337 instead — 41 U.S.C. 7104(b)(2).
How it runs
- Send the enquiryThe form below. Six fields, about a minute.
- Pay the consultation fee$500, on the firm's secure payment page. Credited in full against the fee for the engagement if this office is engaged on the matter.
- The consultationThe call itself. Bring the contracting officer's decision, the envelope or transmittal it arrived in, the contract or solicitation number, and any debriefing correspondence — the clocks run from when you received the paper.
- A written summaryWhat was decided, what the next step is, and the date it has to happen by.
Questions people actually ask
What do I actually get for the fee?
The $500 is the fee for the consultation itself and for the written summary that follows it. It is not a retainer, and it does not include drafting or filing a FOIA request, an administrative appeal, a licence application, a delisting petition, a federal court complaint, a trademark application, a response to a USPTO office action, or a post-registration maintenance filing - each of those is separately scoped and separately quoted. Government, agency and court filing fees, any agency search, review or duplication fees, and any USPTO filing fees, are not included and are payable to the government, not to this office. On a government contract matter it likewise does not include preparing or certifying a claim to a contracting officer, a request for equitable adjustment, a termination settlement proposal, an agency-level protest, a protest at the Government Accountability Office, an appeal to an agency board of contract appeals, or a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims - each of those is separately scoped and separately quoted.
Is this legal advice?
The consultation is. This page is not — it is general information about federal practice, and reading it creates no relationship with this office. Sending this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is formed until this office and you have signed a written engagement agreement.
Can you tell me what my chances are?
You will get a candid assessment of what your record supports and where it is thin, which is the useful version of that question. What you will not get is a percentage. Every matter is decided on its own record by a government officer or a judge, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What happens if you cannot help?
You will be told so on the call, and told where the matter actually belongs. That happens often enough to be worth saying out loud.
Can I bring this in my local district court instead?
Usually not, and this is where published summaries of the statute mislead people. The printed text of 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) still says that both the Court of Federal Claims "and the district courts of the United States" have jurisdiction over procurement objections. That district-court grant sunset: Pub. L. 104-320 section 12(d) provided that it "shall terminate on January 1, 2001 unless extended by Congress". Reading the section on its own, without the note, is how a contractor ends up filing a protest in the wrong court. Separately, the Little Tucker Act at 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2) does give district courts concurrent jurisdiction over some smaller claims against the United States, which is a genuinely different question from procurement objections and is one of the things worth settling on the call rather than after a filing fee.
Does it matter which of the two six-year periods applies?
It matters more than the identical length suggests, because the courts treat them differently. The Supreme Court held in John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, that the limitations period governing the Court of Federal Claims requires a court to consider timeliness on its own motion even where the Government has waived the point. The Federal Circuit held in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315, that the Contract Disputes Act period is not jurisdictional, and confirmed that again in Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Inc. v. Murphy, 823 F.3d 622. The difference comes from the history of how each statute has been read rather than from the words. What it does not mean is that a Contract Disputes Act deadline is soft: the Federal Circuit has expressly left open whether that period can be equitably tolled, and nothing here should be read as saying it can. The point is that under 28 U.S.C. 2501 the court must raise the issue even if nobody else does, which is a reason to be early rather than a reason to relax.
If I win a bid protest there, what do I actually get?
Not lost profits. 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(2) allows the court to award any relief it considers proper, including declaratory and injunctive relief, "except that any monetary relief shall be limited to bid preparation and proposal costs". The practical value of a protest is therefore in the injunctive and declaratory relief — a re-evaluation, a corrective action, an award set aside — rather than in damages. The court reviews the agency on the Administrative Procedure Act standards in 5 U.S.C. 706 under 1491(b)(4), and 1491(b)(3) directs it to give due regard to national defence and national security and to the need for expeditious resolution.