ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. 
Under Contract No. N62470-95-B-2399 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58343 
Mr. Peter C. Nwogu 
President 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Ellen M. Evans, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FREEMAN ON 
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
In our decision dated 25 July 2014, we granted in part the government's motion 
to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We granted the motion to the extent of 
the contractor's claimed amount of $897,082 in costs incurred that exceeded the 
contract price at termination. As to those claimed costs we found that they had not 
been timely submitted as claims for price adjustment to the contracting officer under 
the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, and accordingly, 
were outside our jurisdiction. See Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 58343, 14-1BCAif35,681. Familiarity with that decision is assumed. 
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. (ESCI) moves for reconsideration 
on various grounds. First it contends that its 22 October 2003 CDA claims for: 
(i) additional work in the amount of $457,000 and (ii) breach damages in the amount 
of$1,000,000 were "within the statutory period statute of limitation from June 12, 
1998 when the Navy wrongfully terminated the Contract" (mot. at 9). We disagree. 
The 22 October 2003 claims were found by this Board and the Court of Federal 
Claims to have accrued prior to 22 October 1997 and were accordingly outside the 
six-year CDA statute of limitations. See Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., 
ASBCA No. 54615, 07-1BCAif33,483, and Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. 
v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 190 (2011). 
ESCI contends that its timely appeal of the default termination tolled the statute 
of limitations as to its monetary claims until the default termination appeal was 
decided (mot. at 10). We do not agree. To preserve its rights to assert price 
adjustment and other monetary claims, all ESCI had to do was to timely submit them 

for decision by the contracting officer as specified in the CDA. Such submission was 
in no way hindered or precluded by the appeal of the default termination. Nor was 
entitlement to the price adjustment and other monetary claims contingent on a 
successful appeal of the default termination. 
With respect to our conclusion that the final contract price at termination was 
the amount set in bilateral Modification No. P00006 ($561,873.25), ESCI contends 
that "the parties signed the bilateral Contract Modification P00006 with the condition 
precedent that the Government will be making payment for Invoice No. 7" (mot. 
at 19). There is no reference in Modification No. P00006 to Invoice No. 7 as an 
attachment or otherwise representing that the modification was contingent on payment 
of the invoice (ASBCA No. 51722, R4, tab 2 at 11-12). 
ESCI contends that the Board erred by failing to acknowledge "the clear special 
relationship between the government and small business concerns 
warranting equitable 
tolling" (mot. at 6). ESCI states that as a small disadvantaged African-American 
business it is entitled to the same standard for equitable tolling of the CDA statute of 
limitations as was applied to the native association in Arctic Slope Native Ass 'n v. 
Sebelius, 699 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Arctic Slope, the Court held that 
extraordinary circumstances and the "special relationship" 1 of the government with 
Indian communities justified equitable tolling of the CDA statute of limitations for the 
native association's claims against the government. The extraordinary circumstances 
involved class actions in which Arctic Slope Native Association "reasonably relied 
upon controlling authority, which held that it did not need to exhaust administrative 
remedies to be a class member." Id. at 1298. There are no such extraordinary 
circumstances in ESCI' s case. There was no "controlling authority" leading ESCI to 
believe that a small disadvantaged contractor did not need to file a CDA claim within 
the statutory time 
limit to recover its alleged increased costs and damages caused by 
the government. Indeed, ESCI's filing of its 22 October 2003 CDA price adjustment 
claims shows that it was well aware of the requirement. We also find nothing in Arctic 
Slope implying that any special relationship of the government with small 
disadvantaged businesses would alone, without extraordinary circumstances, be a 
sufficient basis for tolling the CDA statute of limitations. 
In its 11 September 2014 amendment to its Motion for Reconsideration ESCI 
argues that when Alternate I (Apr 1984) of the FAR 52.249-2 Termination clause is 
specified, the paragraph ( e) provision limiting the amount of the termination settlement 
''whether under this paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) below" does not apply (amended 
1 The "special relationship" with Indian communities was defined by the Court as a 
relationship where the government's conduct must meet "the most exacting 
fiiduciary standards." 699 F.3d at 1298 (citing Seminole Nation v. United 
States, 316 U.S. 286, 297 (1942)). 
2 

mot. at 3-4). Paragraph (t) in the basic clause applies to supply and service contracts. 
Paragraph (t) in the Alternate I clause applies to construction contracts. Paragraph (e) 
is the same in both the basic clause and the Alternate I clause. There is nothing in the 
common paragraph (e) and nothing in the Alternate I, paragraph (t) stating or implying 
that the paragraph (e) limitation does not apply to the Alternate I, paragraph (t). 
On reconsideration we find ESCI's arguments without merit and affirm our 
decision of 25 July 2014. 
Dated: 7 November 2014 
I concur 
~~# 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
ef:J::EtiE~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~--~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58343, Appeal of 
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 
Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals