ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC v. U. S., No. 21-1169, August 25, 2023.

[bob7947]

Ever hear of "Claim preclusion?"  Check it out here.

[joel hoffman]

No, I have not heard of it but I’m not a lawyer or a paralegal.

It is apparently the same as or similar to the  doctrine of “res judicata” (see page 8 of the linked US Court of Federal Claims appeal).

https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv1169-92-0

See, for example: https://www.lataxattorney.com/claim-preclusion-and-issue-preclusion.html

[formerfed]

I’ve never heard of it either.  I did a Google search and noticed it’s not all that uncommon a term.  I wonder if the government claim process is more structured, involves more substantial and dollar value subjects, and utilizes more experienced lawyers so the subject just doesn’t come up very often outside of federal contracting?

[bob7947]

I was thinking this phrase comes from another phrase "two bites at the apple."  My memory is telling me that may come up in sealed bidding.  A bid, unlike an offer is meant to be final.  You don't get a second bite at it.

GAO uses the same logic as in "claim preclusion."  They just don't call it that (at least I never noticed it.)

So, where does "two bites at the apple" come from in a judicial proceeding?"  I looked that up.  "The first use of “two bites at the apple” in a judicial opinion did not come until the 1922 case of McCoy v. Tolar, in which the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that a party was not entitled to a new trial just because they had failed to offer available proof at the first trial."  (Source: Noah Chauvin's How Lawyers Eat Apples.)  There you are:  Legal theory is based, in some part, on idioms.