{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{ \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid12547000 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid12547000 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3303584\rsid4727439\rsid6374297\rsid9508377\rsid12547000}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info {\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr8\min23}{\version4}{\edmins4}{\nofpages19}{\nofwords7474}{\nofchars42608}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws49983}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120 \dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6374297 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid6374297 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6374297 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6374297 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6374297 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid6374297\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Pacific Rock Corp. v. Dept. of Education}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid6374297 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3303584 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 of 30 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3303584 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 PACIFIC ROCK CORPORATION}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Plaintiff-Appellee}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 vs.}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 a department of the Executive Branch \par of the Government of Guam, an unincorporated \par Territory of the United States of America}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 OPINION}{\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA98-003 \par Superior Court Case No.:CV0668-94}{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Filed:}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 November 7, 2001}{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 2001 Guam 21}{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Petition for Rehearing \par Argued and submitted on Sept. 21, 2001}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\ul\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Appearing for Petitioner-Appellee}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 : \par Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq. \par A Professional Corporation\tab \par Suite 201, American Life Building \par 137 Murray Boulevard \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \cell \par }{\ul\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Appearing for Respondent-Appellant}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 : \par }{\insrsid3303584 Eric A. Heisel}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Assistant Attorney General \par Office of the Attorney General \par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building \par 120 West O}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt \clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 BEFORE:}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid6374297 \chftn }{\super\insrsid6374297 }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 The Chief Justice recused himself from this case, and as the only full-time justice on the panel, Justice Carbullido was appointed Acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice, RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 . \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 CARBULLIDO, C.J.:}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [1]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In our previous holding in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock Corp. v. Department of Education,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 2000 Guam 19 (hereinafter }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ), we espoused a bright-line test, wherein we held }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}} {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 that the Procurement Law controls actions against the Government of Guam for contracts procured under the statute . . . .}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We maintain our intent in the }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 opinion to }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 clarify and interpret the policies intended by the Legislature in promulgating the Procurement Laws,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 however, in our present holding, we recognize the interplay between the Guam Procurement Law (hereinafter }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Procurement Law}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ) and the Government Claims Act (hereinafter }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Claims Act}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ) in a breach of contract case praying for monetary damages.} {\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Consequently, in our present opinion, we affirm the basic bright-line test in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , but we modify our opinion in breach of contract cases that involve money owed to or by the Government of Guam.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Today, we hold that }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 the Procurement Law controls actions against the Government of Guam for contracts procured under the statute,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 however, in breach of contract suits where monetary relief is sought, the Procurement Law serves as t he final administrative remedy that is a prerequisite to filing a claim pursuant to the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 I.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [2]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab This case arises out of a procurement contract between Pacific Rock Corporation (hereinafter }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ) and the Department of Education (hereinafter }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DOE}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock submitted and DOE accepted a bid for project no. 710-5-1070-L-TER.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The project was for the construction of temporary classrooms at J.Q. San Miguel, Agana Heights, Yigo, Wettengel, M.A. Ulloa, Finegayan, and P.C. Lujan elementary schools.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Collectively referred to as one project, the construction work was composed of four individually signed contracts.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Identical in its form notwithstanding specific project names and locations, each of the four contracts contained a }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Disputes Clause}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 which stated in pertinent part:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this contract, all disputes concerning questions of fact arising under this contract shall be decided by the Contracting Officer whose decision shall be final and conclusive upon the parties thereto.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In the meantime the Contractor shall diligently proceed with the work as directed. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Trial Exhibits A, B, C, D).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In additio n, paragraph IX(2)(a) of the general conditions of the contracts provided in relevant part:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any disputes arising under this contract shall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the Contractor.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The decision of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 26 (Exhibit 2). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [3]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab After the award and upon scrutiny of the project specifications, Pacific Rock discovered non-conformities with applicable building codes and lodged a protest of the award.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Nevertheless, in a letter dated June 29, 1990, Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s president, Delbert Swegler, informed DOE that de spite the discrepancies, the company would commence construction per DOE's plans and specifications.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 However, the company would not take liability for building code violations.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [4]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In a letter dated July 6, 1990, then Director of DOE and Contracting Officer, Anita Sukola (hereinafter }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Sukola}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ), responded that she took Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s indication of intent to commence construction to mean that the company was rescinding its protest of the bid award.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Further, Sukola informed Pacific Rock that it was responsible for bringing attention of known code violations to and resolving such violations with the Department of Public Works.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Sukola asked Pacific Rock to respond if she mistook Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s position, but Pacific Rock gave no such response.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Instead, Pacific Rock and DOE executed the four contracts under the project on or about August 20, 1990. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [5]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab To address concerns over the project, Pacific Rock, its consultant, CIC Consultants, Inc., Department of Public Works, and DOE's construction manager and Contracting Officer}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s representative, E.V. Baldeviso & Associates (hereinafter "Baldeviso") held a technical coordination meeting.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 At the meeting, the parties discussed no less than twenty-one separate issues and appeared to have resolved most of the issues. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [6]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab On August 21, 1990 and August 22, 1990, DOE issued the notices to proceed with the construction.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock thereafter commenced construction.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 However, as Pacific Rock proceeded with the construction, deficient specifications necessitated some eighty-two changes to the project.}{\insrsid3303584 } {\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Trial Exhibits 41-1 through 41-9).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Despite these snags, Pacific Rock completed the project, and final inspection was made on August 16, 1991.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The final payment was also due at this time. \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [7]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Pacific Rock was unable to obtain final payment for both the remaining amounts under the contract and for the change orders.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Shortly thereafter, Baldeviso requested justification from Pacific Rock for the reasons behind the project}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s delay.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In response to Baldeviso}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s request, on May 26, 1992, Pacific Rock submitted a detailed itemization for their reasons in the delay.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On December 28, 1992, Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s attorney, Thomas Keeler, sent a letter to DOE demanding payment of $639,607.60, which represented both the remaining amounts under the contract and the change order monies.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DOE responded to this letter on February 2, 1993, wherein a new Director, Franklin J.A. Quitugua (hereinafter }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Quitugua}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ) informed Pacific Rock that DOE would agree to a total sum of $272,875.05.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Quitugua also inform ed Pacific Rock that the company could submit change orders with invoices under protest then pursue legal remedies.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On February 8, 1993, Quitugua wrote another letter informing Pacific Rock that DOE would not process change orders or invoices under protest and that its position was non-negotiable. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [8]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab On February 10, 1993, Pacific Rock requested that DOE reconsider its position.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DOE agreed, and in a letter dated February 24, 1993, Quitugua offered to form a team consisting of the Attorney General's Office, DOE's own attorney, and Baldeviso to investigate the matter and participate in negotiations.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On March 23, 1993, Pacific Rock responded that it would be amenable to negotiations and reiterated its demand for immediate payment at least to the undisputed amount of $272,875.05. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [9]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Investigation commenced and on June 12, 1993, Baldeviso, as the Contracting Officer}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s representative, issued its first report summarizing approvals and disapprovals of the change order claims requested by Pacific Rock.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On July 6, 1993, Baldeviso issued its second report summarizing an assessment of liquidated damages for the four packages.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Essentially, Baldeviso recommended that a majority of the eighty-two change order items that Pacific Rock requested be disapproved.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Baldeviso also calculated that the Government was entitled to $91,500.00 in liquidated damages.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On July 20, 1993, Dennis L. Boaz, from the Attorney General's office, informed Pacific Rock in a letter that, based on Baldeviso's analysis, the Government would offer a total of $281,399.24, net of liquidated damages. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [10]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Unsuccessful in negotiations, on November 4, 1994, Pacific Rock filed a government claim under the Claims Act against DOE.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On November 16, 1994, Pacific Rock filed the underlying complaint against DOE in the Superior Court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock supplemented its complaint on September 18, 1995.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DOE moved for summary judgment on November 6, 1995, which the trial court denied.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A four-week bench trial was held on August 26, 1996 through September 23, 1996, and subsequently, the trial court ruled in favor of Pacific Rock, denying DOE liquidated damages but awarding Pacific Rock a total of $514,258.76 in damages plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Record on Appeal, Tab 72, p. 71 (Decision and Order, Feb. 26, 1997). \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [11]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Although not clear in its decision, the trial court apparently took jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Claims Act, Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6101 et seq. (1998).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The court determined that Pacific Rock substantially complied with the Claims Act procedures and that its claim arose based on a rule that, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 in order for a claim to arise, a claim made by the Plaintiff must be first denied, thus creating a disputed claim with the Government.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The court applied this rule to conclude that the July 20, 1993 letter from the Attorney General's office was the final deci sion required under the Procurement Law to start the running of the limitations period under the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Since the administrative claim under the Claims Act would be barred if no claim was filed within eighteen months of the claim arising, Pacific Rock would be barred if it failed to file its government claim by January 20, 1995.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Because Pacific Rock filed its complaint on November 4, 1994, the court found the action timely, thus conferring jurisdiction on the trial court and allowing the court to proceed to the merits of the claim. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [12]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab DOE filed an appeal of the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s decision to this court and on June 2, 2000, we reversed the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s earlier ruling.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We held that Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim was not filed within the statute of limitations afforded in the Procurement Law and therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On June 16, 2000, Pacific Rock filed a Petition for Rehearing.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus at the Ninth Circuit on April 3, 2001.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Ninth Circuit denied Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Petition on June 20, 2001 without prejudice, and gave this court sixty days to issue an order on the Petition for Rehearing.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On July 9, 2001, we granted Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 ' }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Petition for Rehearing on this matter. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 II.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [13]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab We have jurisdiction over the appeal of the final judgment of the court below pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 3107, 3108 (1998).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We review issues of statutory interpretation and jurisdiction }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 de novo.}{\i\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Taijeron v. Kim}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1999 Guam 16, }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 9 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run is a question of fact.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Suzuki}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Holthaus}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 375 N.W.2d 126, 128 (Neb. 1985) (quoting }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Interholzinger v. Estate of Dent,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 333 N.W.2d 895, 899 (Neb. 1983)).}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We review a trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s findings of fact for clear error.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Hemlani}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Nelson}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 2000 Guam 9, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 8 (citing }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Yang}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Hong}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1998 Guam 9, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 4). \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 III.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [14]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In its original appeal of the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s decision, DOE raised}{\insrsid3303584 the following issue on appeal:}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Whether the trial court erred in finding that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claims were filed within the 18-month statutory period and thus not precluded by the Claims Act? \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [15]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab To maintain its assertion that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claims were not filed within the eighteen month statutory period and, therefore, were precluded by the Claims Act, DOE argued three points.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, the eighteen month filing period prescribed by the Claims Act is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled by participation in negotiations or by making offers of settlement.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, Pacific Rock was aware that it had a claim against the Government on February 8, 1993.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Third, Procurement regulation 9-103.04.2 is not a provision of the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , having considered these arguments, we reversed the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s decision and found that Pacific Rock failed to timely file its claim at the Superior Court, leaving the court without jurisdiction to decide the case.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [16]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Pursuant to Rule 31 of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure}{\cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid6374297 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 Rule 31, entitled }{\fs20\ul\insrsid6374297 Petition for Rehearing}{ \fs20\insrsid6374297 , of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure states in pertinent part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 The petition shall state with particularity the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the petitioner, the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument i n support of the petition as the petitioner desires to present. An issue not previously briefed by the parties can not be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of Guam. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 Guam R. App. P. 31(a).}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , Pacific Rock, in support of its Petition for Rehearing, proffers four contentions.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, the court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s ruling should not apply to the undisputed amounts under the contract that the Government neglected to pay.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, the Government failed to properly notify Pacific Rock of its right to administrative review; and therefore, Pacific Rock is not bound by the limitations period set forth in the Procurement Law.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Third, the Government waived its right to rely on the limitation provisions of the Procurement Law by failing to plead the statute in its answer or otherwise raise the statute at any time in the proceedings below.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Fourth, the limitations provisions of the Procurement Law do not apply to contract claims for the payment of money. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [17]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab We address both DOE}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s points of argument in the original appeal as well Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s four contentions in its Petition for Rehearing in our resolution of the fundamental issue of this case, which is, whether Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s breach of contract claim seeking monetary damages against DOE was barred by the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The resolution of that issue is contingent on this court}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s determination of two separate, but interrelated queries: (1) what is the proper statute of limitations applicable to the instant case, and (2) when did Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arise.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Statute of Limitations}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [18]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Pacific Rock, in its Petition for Rehearing, argues that this court incorrectly raised }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 sua sponte}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 the issue of lack of jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We disagree.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 waiver of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature so that if the action is barred, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Johnson v. United States,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 2000 WL 968795, at *2 (D. Kan. June 27, 2000) (citing to }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Bradley v. United States, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 951 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir. 1991).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Furthermore, in claims against the government, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 statute of limitations [are] }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 jurisdictional in nature and, as an express limitation on the waiver of sovereign immunity, may not be waived.}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Cooper v. United States}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 47 Fed. Cl. 115, 117 (2000) (quoting }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Hart v. United States,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 910 F.2d 815, 818-19 (Fed.Cir. 1990)) (internal citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Superior Court v. Topasna}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1996 Guam 5, }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6 (stating jurisdictional defects cannot be waived); }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 20 F.3d 1567, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1994); }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Kirby v. United States,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 201 Ct.Cl. 527, 539 (1973).}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The resulting import of this principle is that jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See Lujan }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v}{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 . Lujan}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 2000 Guam 21, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 15.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Therefore, this court in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , did not err in raising the issue regarding the statute of limitations }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 sua sponte}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 . \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [19]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In our resolution of the first issue regarding the proper statute of limitations to apply in this case, we reiterate the basic starting point of discussion in our }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 opinion, the waiver of sovereign immunity.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to Guam.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Econ. Dev. Auth. and Guam Visitors Bureau v. Island Equip. Co.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1998 Guam 7, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6 (citing }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Marx v. Gov}{\i\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 t. of Guam}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 866 F.2d 294, 298 (9th Cir. 1989)).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Organic Act of Guam clearly states that the Government of Guam }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 with the consent of the legislature evidenced by enacted law, may be sued upon any contrac t entered into with respect to . . . the exercise by the government of Guam of any of its lawful powers.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1421a (1987);}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Island Equip.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1998 Guam 7 at }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [20]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In order for a suit to be maintained, therefore, against the Government of Guam and any of its instrumentality such as DOE, there must be an express waiver of sovereign immunity by the Guam Legislature.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1421a; }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Wood v. Guam Power Auth}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ., 2000 Guam 18, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 10.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In the case at bar, two statutes, the Procurement Law and the Clai ms Act, have been proposed as the statute conferred by the Guam Legislature as the express waiver of sovereign immunity by the government in a breach of contract suit praying for monetary relief.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 As reflected in our previous holding, the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s holding, as well as both the parties}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 appellate briefs, there has been much confusion as to the proper statute to apply.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The determination of which statute of limitations provision applies to the instant action is dispositive in our analysis to both the issues of whether Pacific Rock met the statute of limitations and when Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Procurement Law}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [21]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab We first turn our focus to the statute our court previously determined and applied as the controlling statute in the case between Pacific Rock and DOE, the Procurement Law.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , we held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The rationale for our opinion was based on three premises.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, a party who seeks judicial relief from administrative act ion taken under the Procurement Law is not required to comply with the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, the contract and cause of action arose pursuant to the Procurement Law.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Third, the legislature intended that the Procurement Law controls when a cause of action arises under a contract procured through the Procurement Law.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In our opinion today, we embrace the overarching rule set forth in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 that the Procurement Law applies to contracts procured under the Procurement Law; however, we hold that in breach of contract claims praying for monetary damages, the Procurement Law does not contain the requisite waiver of sovereign immunity to bring the case into court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 a.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Legislative History of the Guam Procurement Law }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [22]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The crux of the misunderstanding of which statute to apply stems from the Procurement Law}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s rich, but perplexing legislative history.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In order to guide us in our understanding and interpretation of the Procurement Law, we therefore, examine the legislative history behind the Law. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [23]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The provisions of the Guam Procurement Law, codified in the Guam Government Code }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6950-82 (1982), were originally adopted from the Model Procurement Code by the 16th Guam Legislature in 1982.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam Pub. L. 16-124 (Dec. 30, 1982).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The following three sections under the original Law would have been applicable to the case at bar, which involves a breach of contract claim praying for monetary relief. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [24]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab First, GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6975.2 (a) through (f) addressed the Procurement Law}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s applicability and the Chief Pr ocurement Officer}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s authority in resolving contracts and breach of contracts controversies.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Because of the significance of this section, we outline relevant portions of the section in this opinion.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Section 6975.2 provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (a) Applicability.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This Sectio n applies to controversies between the Territory and a contractor and which arise under, or by virtue of, a }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 contract}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 between them.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This includes without limitation controversies }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 based upon breach of contract}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , mistake, misrepresentation, or other cause for contract modification or rescission.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (b) Authority.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or a designee of one of these officers is authorized, prior to commencement of an action in a court concer ning the controversy, to settle and resolve a controversy described in Subsection (a) of this Section.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This authority shall be exercised in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Policy Office. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (c) Decision.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 If such a controversy is not resolved by mutual agreement, the Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or the designee of one of these officers shall promptly issue a decision in writing.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The decision shall: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (1) state the reasons for the action taken; and \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (2) inform the contractor of its rights to judicial or administrative}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 review as provided in this Chapter. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (d) Notice of Decision.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A copy of the decision under Subsection (c) of this Section shall be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the contractor. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (e) Finality of Decision.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The decision reached pursuant to Subsection (c) of this Section shall be final and conclusive, unless fraudulent, }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 or}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 the contractor commences an action in court in accordance with }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6978(c) of this Chapter.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (f) Failure to Render Timely Decision.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 If the Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or the designee of one of these officers does not issue the written decision required under Subsection (c) of this Section within sixty (60) days after written request for a final decision, }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 or}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 within such longer period as may be agreed upon by the parties, then the contractor may proceed as if an adverse decision had been received. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6975.2(a)-(f) (1982) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [25]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Second, GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6978(c) provided the waiver of sovereign immunity for breach of contract cases.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Under the original Procurement Law provisions, the Superior Court was conferred jurisdiction for breach of contract suits seeking monetary damages.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam Government Code }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6978 (c) and (f) state in relevant part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (c) Actions Under Contracts or for Breach of Contract.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction over an action between the Territory and a contractor, for any cause of action which arises under, or by virtue of, the contract}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , whether the action is at law or in equity, whether the action is on the contract or for a breach of the contract, and whether the action is for monetary damages or declaratory, or other equitable relief}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , but shall be subject to }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as it may be amended or re-codified from time to time.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (f) All actions permitted by this Article shall be conducted as provided in the Government Claims Act. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6978 (c), (f) (1982) (emphasis added). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [26]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Third, GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6878.1(c) defined the time limitations for when a suit for breach of contract damages must be brought.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Section 6878.1(c) provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Actions Under Contracts or for Breach of Contract.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Any action commenced under Section 6978(c) of this Chapter shall be commenced within }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 six months}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 of the date the claim arose, or within }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 six months}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 of the date claimant knew, or should have known, that a claim existed against the other party. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6878.1(c) (1982). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [27]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In 1986, the 18th Guam Legislat ure amended the Procurement Law and added a Procurement Appeals Board, which was again a modified version from a similar provision found in the Model Procurement Code.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam Pub. L. 18-44 (Nov. 14, 1986). }{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The provisions regarding the Procurement Appeals Board were originally codified in GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6983-6983.9 and are presently codified in Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5701-10 (1996).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In addition, the 1986 amendments changed several provisions of the Procurement Law to allow the Procurement Appeals Board to function within the procurement process and significantly modified several of the provisions outlined above.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid6374297 3}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 In }{ \i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Pacific Rock I}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 , we failed to recognize the magnitude of those changes made by the 18th Legislature. In this regard, our court is not alone as reflected in the l atest version of the Guam Administrative Rules and Regulations, which do not comply with the current Procurement Law in all respects.}}}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [28]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The first pertinent change is found in Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5480(c) (1996) (modified from GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6878 (c)), which no longer confers jurisdiction to the Superior Court for breach of contract cases seeking monetary relief as it originally did in the 16th Guam Legislature version.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Section 5480(c) instead provides the following:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In addition to other relief and remedies, the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in any action brought under Subsections (a}{\insrsid3303584 ), (b), or (c) of this Section.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5480(c) (1996). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [29]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The second significant change is found in Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5481(c) (1996) (modified from GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6878.1 ( c)), which changes the time limitations on when an action for a breach of contract suit can be brought.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Section 5}{\insrsid3303584 481(c) states in relevant part:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Any action commenced under 5480(c) of this Chapter shall be commenced within twelve (12) months after the dat e of the Procurement Appeals Board decision. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5481(c) (1996). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [30]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The third major addition to the current Procurement Law is the existence of the Procurement Appeals Board, which ad ded two important dimensions to contract or breach of contract claims.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, it added another review mechanism at the administrative level before a case could be brought to court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, it extended the claimant}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s time frame to bring a Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427 (1996) case into court from six months starting from the time the Chief Procurement Officer renders a decision (under the original Procurement Law) to twelve months from the time the Procurement Appeals Board renders a decision.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [31]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The creation of the Procurement Appeals Board, however, does not aid claimants such as Pacific Rock who are seeking monetary damages under a breach of contract theory.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 57 05, which outlines the jurisdiction of the Procurement Appeals Bo}{\insrsid3303584 ard provides in pertinent part:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Board shall have the power to review and determine de novo any matter properly submitted to it.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Board shall not have jurisdiction over disputes having to do with money owed to or by the government of Guam.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5705 (1996) (emphasis added). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [32]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab As reflected above, the Procurement Appeals Board has no jurisdiction over disputes such as the present, which involve money owed to or by the Government of Guam. The Procurement Appeals Board}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s lack of jurisdiction in this area is consistent with the 18th Guam Legislature} {\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s modification of GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 68 78(c) (presently codified as Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5480(c)) which originally conferred jurisdiction to the Superior Court in breach of contract cases seeking monetary relief.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Procurement Appeals Board}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s lack of jurisdiction and the legislature}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s latest modification do not render the Procurement Law wholly inapplicable to the present case however, in view of the legislature}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s retention of Title 5 GCA }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(a)-(f) (originally codified as GGC }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6975.2(a)-(f)).}{\cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \super\insrsid6374297 4}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 Notwithstanding some minor modifications from its original enactment, 5 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 5427(a)-(f) is essentially identical to GGC }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 6975.2(a)-(f) as outlined above.}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 As aforementioned above, this specific section of the Procurement Law outlines the Procurement Law}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s applicability and the Chief Procurement Officer}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '} {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s authority in resolving contract and breach of contract controversies at the administrative level.}{\cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid6374297 5}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 T he requirement of resolving the dispute at the administrative level provided for in the Procurement Act comport with the contracts signed by the parties in this case. Each of the four contracts contained a }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 Disputes Clause}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 which stated in pertinent part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-720\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this contract, all disputes concerning questions of fact arising under this contract shall be decided by the Contracting Officer whose decision shall be final and conclusive upon the parties thereto. In the meantime the Contractor shall diligently proceed with the work as directed. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par Plaintiff-Appellee}{\fs20\insrsid12547000 '}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Trial Exhibits A, B, C, D). In addition, paragraph IX(2)(a) of the general conditions of the contracts provided in relevant part: \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any disputes arising under this contract s hall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the Contractor. The decision of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 \par Defendant-Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid12547000 '}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 26 (Exhibit 2). \par }}}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [33]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In sum, when viewed in totality, the current disposition of the Procurement Law is that it no longer confers a waiver of sovereign immunity for breach of contract cases}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 for monetary relief.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The Procurement Law remains applicable to such cases, however, through 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(a)-(f), which in effect, provide the last administrative remedy that a claimant must exhaust before pursuing legal recourse. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 2.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Claims Act}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [34]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Because we find that the Procurement Law, though applicable at the administrative level pursuant to 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(a) -(f), does not confer jurisdiction to courts for breach of contract suits seeking monetary relief, we hold that the statute of limitations under the Procurement Law was not the proper statute to apply in this case.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This does not end our analysis, however, we next examine the other proposed statute, the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Although the trial court applied the Claims Act in the instant case, the focus of the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s opinion was determining whether or not Pacific Rock complied with the procedures under the Claims Act and not necessarily discussing the basis for their choice of the Claims Act as the applicable statute.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Ultimately, the trial court found that Pacific Rock }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 substantially complied with}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 the Claims Act}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s procedures.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Record on Appeal, Tab 72, p. 65 (Decision and Order Feb. 26, 1997).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We hold that the trial court was correct in applying the Claims Act as the proper statute in its determination of whether Pacific Rock filed its suit within the statute of limitations, however, we also point out below, the specific provision that confers jurisdiction to the courts in breach of contract cases praying for monetary damages.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [35]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The waiver of sovereign immunity for breach of contract suits against the Government of Guam and its instrumentalities is found in Title 5 GCA }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6105 (1993), which provides in pertinent part:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pursuant to Section 3 of the Organic Act of Guam, the Government of Guam hereby waives immunity from suit, but only as hereinafter provided: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (a)}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 for }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 all expenses incurred in reliance upon a contract to which the Government of Guam is a party}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , but if the contract has been substantially completed, expectation damages may be awarded; \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6105(a) (1993) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Unlike the current Procurement Law provisions, 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6105 provides the proper waiver of sovereign immunity for breach of contract suits praying for monetary relief.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Moreover, the statute provides for both reliance and expectation damages awards.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [36]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , we departed from the }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Ciesiolka v. San Nicolas}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 line of cases that made strict compliance with the Claims Act a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining suit against the government.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Ciesiolka v. San Nicolas}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , Civ. No. CV-90-00076A, 1991 WL 336902, at * 3 (D. Guam App. Div. June 11, 1991).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In accord with our current holding that the statute of limitations found in the Claims Act is the proper time limitations to apply in the present case, we return to the policy adopted by the 9th Circuit.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The pragmatical effect of this holding is that claimants, suc h as Pacific Rock, whose claims are not conferred a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Procurement Law, are required to file a government claim with the Attorney General before filing suit in court as mandated by 5 GCA }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106, 6201-13.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid6374297 6}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 To eliminate any discrepancies, we confine our opinion to suits such as the present, wherein the Procurement Law does not confer a waiver of sovereign immunity. In suits that the P rocurement Law provides for a comprehensive remedial scheme both administratively and legally, then the Procurement Law controls and to that extent }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Pacific Rock I}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 remains good law.}}}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [37]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab We acknowledge Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s concern and our previous apprehension in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , where exhaustion of remedies under the Procurement Law and the filing of a claim with the Attorney General}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Office may result in dual administrative review, at the Chief Procurement Officer level and at the Attorney General level.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The rationale for our current disposition in this matter is two-fold.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, as previously outlined in the Procurement Law discussion, the 18th Guam Legislature not only removed the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Procurement Law for brea ch of contract cases seeking monetary damages, but also, specifically did not allow the Procurement Appeals Board to hear cases that involve money owed to and by the Government of Guam.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Consequently, notwithstanding the current non-existence of the Procurement Appeals Board, had the Board existed, cases within the Procurement Appeals Board}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s jurisdiction would have received dual administrative review as well, at the Chief Procurement Officer level and the Procurement Appeals Board level before the case is moved to court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, the possibility of additional review (which increases the chances of settlement before the case enters the court system) is consistent with the overarching policy of sovereign immunity and that is to protect the government from unnecessary suits.} {\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See Rustin v. Dist. of Columbia, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 491 A.2d 496, 501 n. 8 (D.C. 1985) (citations omitted)}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The very purpose of the doctrine of sovereign immunity is to protect the government from having to spend significant amounts of time litigating the merits of its policy decisions.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ).}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The commentary found in Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6206 (1993) entitled }{ \ul\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Settlement of Claim Before Action}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 supports this proposition and states in relevant part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Former law, with a short exception, provided that the Attorney General could approve settlements only if they were under $3,000.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This se ction retains the limit of $3,000 for the Attorney General or Claims Officer acting alone, but permits greater settlements with the approval of the Governor, in the case of line agencies, and the Board or chief officer, Attorney General and Governor in th e case of autonomous agencies.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This should encourage settlements before court suits, but keep the policy makers aware of the settlement and permit them to bring other policy considerations into the larger settlements.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We should not encourage suits where settlement is possible.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6206 cmt. (1993) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 B.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 When did Pacific Rock}{\b\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Claim Arise?}{\cs15\b\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \super\insrsid6374297 7}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 We disagree with the dissent}{\fs20\insrsid12547000 '}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 s intimation that the issue of when the claim arose was not properly raised in the Petition for Rehearing. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid6374297 See infra}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 (concurring and dissenting opinion of BENSON, J.). Notwithstanding the issue}{\fs20\insrsid12547000 '}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 s significance in the original appeal, in this rehearing, both parties extensively discussed the issue in their briefs and during oral arguments. \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6374297 Alternatively, even if the issue was not properly raised, if in review of our prior opinion, we discover an error, the court can }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 sua sponte}{ \fs20\insrsid6374297 grant rehearing on the issue. In this regard, we follow the procedural framework of }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Clark Pipe & Supply Co., Inc}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 .}{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 v. Associates Commercial Corp.}{ \fs20\insrsid6374297 , 893 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1990). In }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Clark Pipe}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 ,}{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 an issue was not raised by the Petitioner, however, the court, }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 sua sponte}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 , granted rehearing on that issue in conjunction with the issues that were properly raised reasoning: }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid6374297 Our review of our prior opinion . . . convinces us that our holding with respect to valuation of the collateral is erroneous and should be corrected in order to avoid any precedential effect it may have on this point.}{ \fs20\insrsid6374297 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 }{\i\fs20\insrsid6374297 Id. }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 at 595 n. 1.}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [38]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The next issue that our court must resolve is when Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim against DOE arose.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 At first glean, the issue appears straightforward, howeve r, the analytical scheme for resolving it begins with the recognition of the interplay between both the Procurement Law and the Claims Act outlined above.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Moreover, the resolution of this issue ultimately controls whether or not Pacific Rock met the statute of limitations for their present suit.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 For reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s finding that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose on July 20, 1993, which represents the date of the final decision under 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1800\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1440\lin1800\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1.\tab Pacific Rock}{\b\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Claim Arose When it Exhausted its Administrative Remedies Afforded to it by the Procurement Law.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [39]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In the instant case, Pacific Rock brought a breach of contract suit against DOE for monetary damages.}{\cs15\super\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid6374297 8}{\insrsid6374297 }{\fs20\insrsid6374297 Pacific Rock contends that the disputed and undisputed portions of its breach of contract suit are distinct and that even if the court rules that the suit was brought beyond the statute of limitations, the undisputed portion should nonetheless be awarded to them. We find Pacific Rock}{\fs20\insrsid12547000 '}{\fs20\insrsid6374297 s contention unwarranted. In a breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff cannot separate the undisputed portion from the disputed portion for they are part of the whole case. \par }}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 As illustrated above, breach of contract claims s eeking monetary damages for contracts procured under the Procurement Law are distinct from other contract claims that arise under the Procurement Law, in that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, however, that does not mean that this case is wholly r emoved from the Procurement Law.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The 18th Guam Legislature}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s retention of 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(a)-(f) in view of all the major changes that occurred in the Procurement Law during that period, reflects the Guam Legislature}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s desire that breach of contract disputes, regardless of the remedy sought, be first resolved at the Chief Procurement Officer}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s level.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Because 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427 sets f orth the final administrative measure that a contractor such as Pacific Rock must undertake under the Procurement Law before seeking further remedy, we find 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f) entitled }{\ul\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Failure to Render Timely Decision}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 germane in the court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s analysis of when a claim arises.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f) provides:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 If the Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or the designee of one of these officers does not issue the written decision required under Subsection (c) of this Section within sixty (60) days after written request for a final decision, or within such longer period as may be agreed upon by the parties, then the contractor may proceed as if an adverse decision had been received. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f). \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [40]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f) establishes a scheme as to when a final decision should be rendered.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In our reading of the statute, we see three possible scenarios that claimants may face during their dispute resolution with the Chief Procurement Officer.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The first scenario is that a claimant submits a written request for a final decision, which should be rendered within sixty days by the Chief Procurement Officer.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The second instance is that the parties agree to prolong the final decision beyond the sixty days which is allowable under the }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 within such longer period as may be agreed upon by the parties}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 clause of the provision.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f) (1996).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The third situation is that there is neither a wr itten request for a final decision within sixty days submitted nor an agreement between the parties (through words or conduct) to prolong the final decision beyond the sixty days and therefore, a final decision should still be rendered within the sixty da ys.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Under scenarios one and three, the matter becomes a direct application of the sixty days formula mandated by the statute, however, under the second instance, the determination of when the Chief Procurement Officer or his representative renders a final decision as a result of all the negotiations becomes a factual issue that a court is compelled to examine.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We find that the case between Pacific Rock and DOE falls under this second scenario. \par \par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1800\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1440\lin1800\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 2.\tab The Issue of When a Final Decision was Given is a Question of Fact.}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [41]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , we failed to identify the proper standard of review in our examination of this specific factual issue regarding the date of the final decision under 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . .}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Yang }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Hong,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1998 Guam 9, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 4 (citing to Guam R. Civ. P. 52(a) and }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Coffey}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Gov}{ \i\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 t of Guam}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 1997 Guam 14, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Factual determinations are reviewed for cl ear error.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Yang,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1998 Guam 9 at }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 4 (citing to }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Chargualaf}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , Crim. No. 88-00068A, 1989 WL 265040, at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 26, 1989)).}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [42]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Here, the trial court concluded that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim against DOE arose on July 20, 1993.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Record on Appeal, Tab 72, p. 68 (Decision and Order Feb. 26, 1997).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The trial court based its finding on the offer and counter-offer activities that occurred between the parties after the substantial completion of the project on August 16, 1991.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See id. }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 at 66.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 It further found that notwithstanding DOE}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s unfavorable treatment of Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s demand, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 it [was] clear that no official denial of [Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s] claims had been made}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 until July 20, 1993.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Id}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 at 66, 68.}{ \insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [43]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab From our examination of the record, especially focusing on the documented correspondences between the parties after t he substantial completion of the project, we hold that the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s finding of fact regarding when Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose was not clearly erroneous and therefore, affirm it.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A finding is clearly erroneous when, even though some evidence supports it, the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a mistake.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Yang,}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 1998 Guam 9, at }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 7.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [44]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The project was substantially completed on August 16, 1991; this day also represented the day of final inspection and when the final payment was due.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Throughout the duration of the project, several disputes surfaced regarding the various modifications from the original plan.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 When the project formally ended on August 16, 1991, further negotiations regarding those modifications and payment of those modifications not only continued, but discussions about the final payment remaining on the contract commenced.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [45]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Although Pacific Rock demanded payment of $639,607.60 to DOE on December 28, 1992, the negotiations did not cease.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On February 2, 1993 and supplemented by another letter on February 8, 1993, Quitugua made Pacific Rock an offer of $272,875.05.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Quitugua}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s February 8, 1993 letter contained the following excerpt:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The offer of $272,875.05 is firm and non-negotiable.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 If this is not acceptable, Mr. Swegler is free to pursue any available remedies. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Excerpts of Record, tab 19 (trial exhibit Y). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [46]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The trial court did not construe the above as a final rejection of Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s demand because it did not contain the required language that Pacific Rock is free to seek judicial review in Superior Court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Record on Appeal, Tab 72, p. 67 (Decision and Order, Feb. 26, 1997).}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Additionally, in response to Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s request for further negotiations on February 10, 1993, Quitugua welcomed the opportunity for further negotiations as reflected in the following excerpts of his February 24, 1993 response:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In response to your request to further negotiate the matter of the amounts due to Pacific Rock we are prepared to meet with you and Mr. Swegler to completely and finally resolve this matter. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 I look forward to working with you toward resolving this matter once and for all. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Supplemental Record on Appeal (Exhibit D-55). \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [47]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In addition to the above, another letter sent by Baldeviso, the Contracting Officer}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s representative, de monstrate the parties ongoing resolution of the dispute.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In that June 16, 1993 nine page letter, Baldeviso addressed each of the various packages under the project, gave a brief description of the claims that Pacific Rock had, and noted whether or not the claims were approved or disapproved.}{\insrsid3303584 } {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 At the end of the letter, Baldeviso stated:}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We look forward that the above information will help settle disputes and eventually close these project in due time. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Trial Exhibit 41-9). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [48]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab It was not until the July 20, 1993 letter from the Attorney General}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s office had Pacific Rock been notified that its claims have been rejected and that the Government}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s final offer was $277,506.19.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This letter, which the trial court construed to be the final denial of Plaintiff}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s request, is significant because it attached Baldeviso}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s final assessment of the project.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Moreover, this letter contained a larger amount than the one previously offered by Quitugua and established Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim against DOE.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See Franconia Assocs.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 United States}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 240 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A claim against the United States first accrues when the government}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s liability is determined.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 );}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Kinsey}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 United States}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 852 F.2d 556, 557 (Fed. Cir. 1988); }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Wrona}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 United States}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 40 Fed. Cl. 784, 787-88 (1998); }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 see also Brighton Village Assocs.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 United States}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1995). \par \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [49]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In addition to 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427, which authorizes the Contracting Officer to resolve matters that arise in procurement contracts, the general conditions of the contracts contained a disputes provision that stated, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 any disputes arising under this contract shall be decided by the Contracting Officer.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 26 (Exhibit 2).}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Furthermore, even during the construction period, the contract mandated that not only are disputes to be decided by the Contracting Officer, but also, }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [i]n the meantime the Contractor shall diligently proceed with the work as directed.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Exhibits A, B, C, D).}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 It was therefore fair and reasonable for the parties to continually negotiate in the manner that they did and for as long as they did.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Had Pacific Rock chosen to immediately file suit in court before resolving this matter in accordance to 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427 and their contract per the disputes provisions in the general conditions of the contracts, they would have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and would not have been able to maintain their suit.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 See Cannon}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 v. }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 United States}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 146 F. Supp. 827, 829 (Ct. Cl. 1956).}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A cause of action of whatever nature can accrue only at the time that a suit may be maintained thereon, and from that date forward the applicable statute of limitations begins to run.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We therefore affirm the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s finding of July 20, 1993 as the date when Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim against DOE arose as it effectively represented the date when Pacific Rock was rendered a final decision under 5 GCA }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427(f).}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 C.}{\b\insrsid3303584 }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Did Pacific Rock}{ \b\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Claim against DOE fall within the Statute of Limitations? \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [50]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab At the heart of this case is the determination of }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Whether Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s breach of contract claim seeking monetary damages was filed within the statute of limitations?}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We hold that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim was filed within the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Our holding here is grounded from our previous resolution of the two preliminary queries.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 First, the proper statute of limitations applicable in a breach of contract suit involving money owed to or by the Government of Guam is found in the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Second, Pacific Rock}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose when it exhausted its administrative remedies afforded to it by the Procurement Law pursuant to 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5427. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [51]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The statute of limitations under the Claims Act is found on Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 6106 (1993) and provides:}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Limitations on Actions and Filing. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (a) All claims under this Act must be filed within 18 months from the date the claim arose, but any claims timely filed under the predecessor of this Act shall be considered to have been timely filed under this Chapter. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584 \par }\pard \ql \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 (b) Every action filed under this Chapter sh all be barred unless commenced within 18 months from the time the notice that the claim was rejected was served as provided in Article 2 of this Chapter, or within 24 months after the claim was filed in cases where the government does not reject the claim . \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106(a)-(b) (1993).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pursuant to 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106(a), a claimant must file a claim }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 within 18 months from the date the claim arose.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 5 GCA }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106(a).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 As 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106(a)-(b) provide and the comment to this specific provision explain s, the government has six months to render a decision on this claim.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 A claimant can only file a suit in court within eighteen months after the government rejects its claim during those six months or within twenty-four months after the original filing of t hat claim if the claim is not rejected during those six months, whichever comes first.}{\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [52]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab As we determined above, Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose on July 20, 1993.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock had eighteen months from that time to file a claim.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 It filed a government claim with the Guam Attorney General}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Office for both the final payment and compensation for the additional work against DOE on November 4, 1994.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 This was sixteen months from the time the claim arose and therefore within the eighteen-month limit of 5 GCA }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 6106(c).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Two weeks later on November 16, 1994, Pacific Rock filed its suit in the Superior Court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 An examination of the record does not reveal that the Attorney General responded to Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s November 4, 1994 government claim.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Consequently, Pacific Rock should have waited six months from the time they filed their claim on November 4, 1994 before filing suit in Superior Court.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 On September 18, 1995, however, Pacific Rock filed a Supplemental Complaint in Superior Court, which, in effect, served as a cure to their premature filing on November 16, 1994.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We, therefore, hold that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim was filed within the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s case against DOE. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 IV.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [53]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab Our opinion is restricted to breach of contract cases for contracts procured under the Procurement Law, which involve money owed to or by the Government of Guam.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 For other types of contracts pr ocured under the Procurement Law and whose claimants have been afforded a comprehensive remedial scheme both administratively and legally under the provisions, we affirm our holding in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 ,}{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 which states that the Procurement Law controls those types of actions against the Government of Guam as intended in the Procurement Law.}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In the present case, however, the Procurement Law served as the final administrative remedy that Pacific Rock had to pursue before going to the Claims Act; and whose exhaust ion of such administrative remedy effectively commenced the running of the statute of limitations under the Claims Act.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We hold that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim was filed within the statute of limitations provided for in the Claims Act and that the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s decision is }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Our holding in }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 is modified to the extent that it is inconsistent with our holding today.}{\insrsid3303584 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO \par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Chief Justice (Acting)}{\insrsid6374297 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 BENSON, J.: CONCURRING and DISSENTING}{\b\insrsid6374297 \par }{\insrsid3303584\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [54]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab I concur with the court in its reasoning and in its holding that in breach of contract cases seeking monetary damages against the Government of Guam, the Procurement Law serves as the final administrative remedy that is a prerequisite to filing a claim pu rsuant to the Claims Act. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [55]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab I dissent from the holding that Pacific Rock}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s claim arose on July 20, 1993, the trial court}{ \insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s finding of fact, not on December 28, 1992 as held in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The court states that the issue was raised in the Petition for Rehearing.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 I do not agree. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [56]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab In its Petition for Rehearing, Pacific Rock failed to meet the requirements of Rule 31 of this Court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s Rules of Appellate Procedure to }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 state with particularity the points of la w or fact . . . the Court has overlooked or misapprehended.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Guam R. App. P. 31(a).}{ \insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s opinion sets out the four issues presented by Pacific Rock.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 That }{ \i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 erred in holding the date it did is not raised.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Nor does the Petition for Rehearing raise the issue of the standard of review for factual findings (which would have gotten to the problem).}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 The memorandum supporting the Petition for Rehearing does not discuss either the date found by the trial court, the date held in }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , or the standard of review. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [57]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The Department of Education}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s response to the Petition for Rehearing mentions December 28, 1992 only to point out that even if the eighteen months in the Government Claims Act were the proper statute of limitations to use, Pacific Rock is still out of time.}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 In its reply brief, Pacific Rock discusses at length what it sees as the proper date (July 20, 1993), and quotes from its brief on appeal.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 These two circumstances do not correct that failure of Pacific Rock to }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 state with particularity}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 the issue.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [58]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab The court also states that it is entitled to address }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 DOE}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s points of argument in the original appeal.}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 No authority is cited, and I know of none.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [59]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab I believe, therefore, that the issue of the date on which the claim arose is not before us. \par }{\b\insrsid3303584 \par }{\b\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 [60]}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \tab On its own motion, the court could have granted a rehearing on the issue of whether }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pacific Rock I}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 properly overruled the trial court}{\insrsid12547000\charrsid3303584 '}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 s finding of fact.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Clark Pipe and Supply Co., Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corporation}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 , 893 F.2d 693, 695 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1990) (granting a rehearing on the issue requested and on a second issue }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 sua sponte}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .}{\insrsid3303584 }{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Our review of our prior opinion, however, convinces us that our holding with respect to va luation of the collateral is erroneous and should be corrected in order to avoid any precedential effect it may have on this point.}{\insrsid3303584 }{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 We therefore, sua sponte, grant REHEARING on that issue as well.}{ \insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3303584 }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Id}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 .).}{\insrsid3303584 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303584 {\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 RICHARD H. BENSON \par Justice }{\i\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid6374297\charrsid3303584 \par }}