This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Jemison & Partners, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Appellant Jemison & Partners, Inc. (Jemison) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) entered into a contract for greenspace restoration in 2019.  That restoration included placing topsoil along a portion of Jefferson Avenue’s median in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  For the topsoil placement, the parties dispute whether their contract requires a unit-price or lump-sum payment.  That is, does the contract require the Corps to pay Jemison for the actual quantity of topsoil placed or a lump sum based on the quantity of topsoil the parties estimated would be placed?

Jemison appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board), insisting that it had been underpaid by $53,104.80 because the contract required a lump-sum payment for topsoil placement.  The Board disagreed and found that the contract required per-unit payment for the topsoil placement.  See In re Jemison & Partners, Inc., ASBCA No. 62928, 23-1 B.C.A. ¶ 38,249, 2022 WL 17970459 (Dec. 5, 2022) (Decision). Jemison appeals the Board’s determination.  Appellee Secretary of the Army (Secretary) counters that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal and, in the alternative, argues that the Board correctly interpreted the contract.  For the following reasons, we conclude that we have jurisdiction, and we affirm the Board’s decision.

Regis v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Michael R. Regis appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision to rate his service-connected bilateral-foot disability covered by diagnostic code 5276 at 30% for the effective period prior to May 11, 2015.  Because this appeal does not present issues within our limited jurisdiction, we dismiss.