Rizzani de Eccher (USA), Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 52686, ASBCA 52796
Decision date: 2018-07-06

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Petition of --
Rizzani de Eccher (USA), Inc. 
Under Contract No. W912ER-l l-C-0001 
APPEARANCES FOR THE PETITIONER: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) ASBCA No. 61584-984 
) 
) 
Jeffrey G. Gilmore, Esq. 
John M. Neary, Esq. 
Daniel R. Miktus, Esq. 
Akerman LLP 
Washington, DC 
Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Regina L. Schowalter, Esq. 
Nancy L. Pell, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 
Winchester, VA 
ORDER PURSUANT TO BOARD RULE l(a)(S) 
DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO ISSUE DECISION 
The contractor filed, under Rule l(a)(S), a request for an order directing the 
contracting officer (CO) to render a decision on a December 29, 2017 certified claim 
in the amount of $10,248,275. The contractor requested that the CO issue a decision 
by August 2, 2018. The government has advised that a final decision on the claim will 
be issued by November 16, 2018. We find this date unreasonable and direct the 
contracting officer to issue a decision by September 12, 2018. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE PETITION 
1. On December 16, 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (government or 
USA CE) awarded Contract No. W9 l 2ER- l l-C-OOO 1 to Rizzani de Eccher (USA), Inc. 
(the contractor) to construct two billets facilities and a subsistence warehouse at 
Al Udeid Air Base, State of Qatar (pet. at 2). 
2. By letter dated December 29, 2017, the contractor submitted a certified 
claim to the CO for a time extension, compensable delays and costs, and remission of 
liquidated damages in the amount of $10,248,275. The claim was 80-pages long and 
contained 108 exhibits. (Pet., ex. 1) 

3. On January 8, 2018, the CO acknowledged receipt of the claim via email 
(pet., ex. 2). 
4. By letter dated February 23, 2018, the CO stated that due to the size and 
complexity of the claim, a final decision would be issued by February 27, 2019.* The 
CO's letter also requested that the contractor submit the exhibits for the subject claim 
and certain scheduling files. (Pet., ex. 3) 
5. The contractor submitted the exhibits and scheduling files on April 16, 2018 
(pet. resp. at 2). 
DECISION 
When a CO receives a certified claim over $100,000, the Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, requires that within sixty days of receipt of the 
claim, the CO shall (a) issue a decision or (b) notify the contractor of the time within 
which a decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2). 
The CDA also requires that the decision of the CO on a contractor claim "shall 
be issued within a reasonable time ... taking into account such factors as the size and 
complexity of the claim and the adequacy of information in support of the claim 
provided by the contractor." 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3). 
Under the CDA, "[a] contractor may request the tribunal concerned to direct a 
contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time, as determined by 
the tribunal concerned, in the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting 
officer." 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4). Board Rule l(a)(5) implements this section 
providing that "[i]n lieu of filing a notice of appeal under paragraph (a)(l) or (a)(2) of 
this Rule, the contractor may petition the Board to direct the contracting officer to 
issue a decision in a specified period of time as determined by the Board." 
Whether the time in which a CO states he or she will issue a decision is 
reasonable must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Eaton Contract Services, Inc., 
ASBCA Nos. 52686, 52796, 00-2 BCA ~ 31,039 (finding eight months reasonable 
given the volume of documentation, number of issues and time needed to gather 
information due to relocation of personnel); Defense Systems Co., ASBCA No. 50534, 
97-2 BCA ~ 28,981 (finding nine months reasonable when claimed amount exceeded 
$71 million and narrative portion of the claim alone exceeded 162 pages); 
Dillingham/ABB-SUSA, a Joint Venture, ASBCA Nos. 51195, 51197, 98-2 BCA 
• The government's response to the petition updated the expected date of the final 
decision to November 16, 2018 (gov't opp'n at 3). 
2 

, 29,778 (finding 14-16 months unreasonable for a small construction claim and an 
impact claim that had been extensively analyzed and audited). 
The government and contractor disagree over when the contractor provided the 
CO information necessary to process the claim. The government points to the CO's 
February 23, 2018 letter requesting the contractor "submit the exhibits for the subject 
claim, P6/xer files for the approved baseline schedule, monthly updates, and 
final/as-built schedules in order to analyze time related impacts as soon as possible." 
The government states that the CO' s request went unanswered until after the current 
petition was filed with the Board. (Gov't opp'n at 2) 
The contractor acknowledges that it provided the requested documents on 
April 16, 2018, but also maintains that these documents were already in the possession 
of the government (pet. resp. at 1-2). The contractor submitted to the Board a 
screenshot from the USACE's Resident Management System and Quality Control 
System programs showing that the claim and its 108 exhibits were sent to the 
government on December 31, 2017 (pet. resp., ex. 1 ). Regarding the requested 
scheduling files, the contractor asserts that these were provided to the government 
during the pendency of the contract (pet. resp. at 2). 
After considering the parties' arguments, we find neither wholly persuasive. 
The contractor submitted the certified claim and exhibits on December 31, 2017. The 
CO acknowledged receipt of the claim on January 8, 2018, but made no mention of the 
allegedly missing exhibits at that time. It was not until his February 23, 2018 letter 
that the CO requested the exhibits and certain scheduling files. It is not clear why the 
CO requested the claim exhibits when they were previously provided. At the same 
time, though, the contractor's lack of communication in response to the CO's letter 
also contributed to the delay. Finally, the contractor asserts that the requested 
scheduling files were submitted during the pendency of the contract, but does not 
provide anything to support this assertion. 
Under the circumstances, we find the November 16, 2018 date for issuing a 
final decision to represent undue delay. We believe that a reasonable time for the CO 
to issue a final decision is September 12, 2018. 
CONCLUSION 
The Board hereby directs the CO to issue a decision on the contractor's claim 
by September 12, 2018. 
This Order completes all necessary action by the Board. If the CO fails to 
comply with this Order, such failure will be deemed a decision by the CO denying the 
3 

claim, and the contractor may appeal to this Board or sue in the United States Court of 
Federal Claims pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103(£)(5) and 
7104. 
Dated: July 6, 2018 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~dministrative Judge 
Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
!co~ 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
-------
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order Pursuant to Rule l(a)(5) 
of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA 615 84-984, Petition of 
Rizzani de Eccher (USA), Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals