## Facts

- The General Services Administration (GSA) entered a “purchase and repair” agreement with Bonneville Associates for an office building in Las Vegas, Nevada, for $9,908,452.
- The contract required Bonneville to perform extensive repairs and alterations to make the building suitable for government use.
- About $1.7 million of the price ($1,708,452) was withheld and to be paid as the repair work progressed.
- After title transferred to the United States, disputes arose regarding structural integrity and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
- On August 21, 1991, the contracting officer issued a final decision demanding $5,195,069 for costs to correct structural defects and improve HVAC cooling capacity, relying on warranty provisions for structural issues and repair/alteration provisions for HVAC.
- The final decision advised Bonneville of its Contract Disputes Act (CDA) options: appeal to the relevant board of contract appeals or file suit in the Court of Federal Claims.
- Bonneville filed a notice of appeal at the General Services Board of Contract Appeals on November 19, 1991; the board docketed the appeal on November 26, 1991.
- Bonneville later moved to withdraw the board appeal; the board dismissed it without prejudice on January 17, 1992.
- While the board matter was pending, Bonneville filed a Court of Federal Claims complaint on January 13, 1992 seeking withheld funds and additional damages.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the CDA “Election Doctrine” barred the Court of Federal Claims action because Bonneville first elected the board forum.

## Issues

1. Whether the “purchase and repair” contract fell within the CDA such that the board of contract appeals had jurisdiction over Bonneville’s appeal.
2. If the board had jurisdiction, whether Bonneville’s timely, docketed board appeal constituted a binding election of forum that deprived the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over the same contracting officer’s final decision.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the contract was covered by the CDA, so the board had jurisdiction.
- The court held Bonneville’s prior, timely appeal to the board was a binding forum election under the CDA.
- The court concluded the later withdrawal and “without prejudice” dismissal at the board did not undo the election or restore Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over the same claim.

## Legal Principles

- The CDA provides mutually exclusive avenues to contest a contracting officer’s final decision: an appeal to the appropriate board of contract appeals or an action in the Court of Federal Claims.
- When the initially chosen forum has jurisdiction, a contractor’s timely filing there constitutes a binding election that bars pursuing the same claim in the alternative CDA forum.
- A contractor cannot avoid the election bar by withdrawing the first-filed board appeal or obtaining a board dismissal without prejudice.
- A contract combining acquisition with significant repair/alteration obligations may fall within the CDA’s scope where the agreement functions as a procurement arrangement rather than a simple real-property acquisition.

## Conclusion

The Court of Federal Claims held that the CDA covered the GSA–Bonneville “purchase and repair” contract and that Bonneville’s docketed board appeal was an irrevocable forum election, leaving the court without jurisdiction over Bonneville’s later suit based on the same contracting officer’s final decision.


Bonneville Assocs. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 85 (1993)