DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. 
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                          
 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET 
ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
 
This appeal involves a contract between the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers (government or USACE) and the appellant Watts Constructors, LLC (Watts) 
for Watts to construct a Satellite Earth Terminal Station Facility at Camp Roberts, 
California.  Watts filed a certified claim with the contracting officer (CO) for, inter alia, 
additional time and money resulting from various alleged government delays.  The CO 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Watts Constructors, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63753 
 )  
Under Contract No. W91238-14-C-0040 )  
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Michael E. Wagner, Jr., Esq. 
Jeffrey M. Hummel, Esq. 
  Seyfarth Shaw LLP 
  Washington, DC 
 
Zachary F. Jacobson, Esq. 
  Seyfarth Shaw LLP 
  San Francisco,CA 
 
Anthony J. LaPlaca, Esq. 
    Seyfarth Shaw LLP 
    Boston, MA 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
    Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
  Anna F. Kurtz, Esq. 
  Engineer Trial Attorney 
 
Colby K. Stewart, Esq. 
Amanda R. Chase, Esq. 
Kevin Cullen, Esq. 
Eric Wright, Esq. 
Schuyler Lystad, Esq. 
    Engineer Trial Attorneys 
    U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
2 
 
denied that claim, and Watts filed this appeal.  The government now moves for partial 
summary judgment (Motion), arguing that some of Watts’ delay claims were untimely 
under the statute of limitations.  As discussed in greater detail below, the statute of 
limitations bars one—but not all—of the delay claims upon which the government bases 
the Motion because only one claim accrued more than six years before Watts filed a 
certified claim.  Thus, we grant the motion in part, and deny it in part. 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
 
I.    Introduction 
 
1.  On September 3, 2014, the government awarded to Watts Contract No. W91238-
14-C-0040 (Contract), a design-bid-build contract for a Satellite Communications Earth 
Terminal Station Facility at Camp Roberts, California. (R4, tab 16 at 1; GSUMF ¶ 2).
1  
The Contract required the government to provide, inter alia, uninterruptable power 
supply (UPS) and switchgear equipment (collectively, Equipment) for the Operations 
Center (OPS Building) and the modernization and enterprise terminal sites (METS 
Building) (app. supp. R4, tab 189 at 76-77; ASUMF ¶ 35). 
 
2.  The government issued a notice to proceed on September 19, 2014, with an 
original contract completion date of June 30, 2016 (R4, tab 17 at 1). 
 
II.  Site Access Limitations 
 
3.  On February 26, 2015, the government suspended work on the project due to 
limited site access (app. supp. R4, tabs 194, 271; GSUMF ¶ 11).  On May 21, 2015, the 
government lifted that suspension (app. supp. R4, tab 209; GSUMF ¶ 12). 
 
4.  On September 30, 2015, Watts submitted a cost proposal for the suspension, 
indicating that the suspension increased the time required to complete the project by 
114 days and Watts’ costs by $1,130,626 (R4, tab 36 at 1, 10).2 
 
5.  To address the suspension, the parties executed bilateral Modification 
Nos. A00001/R00001 and P00002 on February 4, 2016 and September 30, 2016, which 
 
1 “GSUMF” refers to the government’s statement of undisputed material facts, and 
Watts’ response to that statement of undisputed material facts.  “ASUMF” refers 
to Watts’ statement of undisputed material facts, and the government’s response to 
that statement of undisputed material facts.   
2 All days in this decision are calendar days (cds). 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
3 
 
extended the contract completion date by 114 days and increased the contract price by 
$624,957.21 respectively (R4, tab 18; app. supp. R4, tab 271). 
 
III.  Procuring the Equipment 
 
6.  On April 24, 2015, Watts sent the government a request for information seeking, 
inter alia, submittal data or product documentation for the UPS equipment (R4, tab 101; 
ASUMF ¶ 36).  The government did not provide the supporting submittal information on 
the UPS equipment.  Instead, the government responded on June 3, 2015, stating that a 
modification was in progress to revise the government furnished contractor installed 
(GFCI) equipment.  (ASUMF ¶ 37) 
 
7.  On September 24, 2015, the government issued request for proposal 0008 (RFP 
0008), which requested that Watts submit a proposal for Watts—as opposed to the 
government—to provide the Equipment (R4, tab 35 at 1). 
 
8.  Watts’ September 30, 2015 schedule narrative report indicated that, “[p]er RFP 
0008-UPS and Switchgear for METS/OPS, Watts will now be furnishing and installing 
the UPS and Switchgear that was previously Government Furnished.  The drop-dead date 
for the submittal information was 17-August-2015.  Depending on the Modification, 
submittal, and procurement process, this could still cause delay.”  (R4, tab 149 at 1) 
 
9.  On October 30, 2015, Watts submitted to the government a cost proposal in 
response to RFP 0008 in the amount of $3,792,541 for direct costs.  The cost proposal 
indicated that “[a]ll schedule impacts and associated costs related to this RFP will be 
negotiated with a separate RFP.”  (App. opp’n, ex. 1 at 1; GSUMF ¶ 18).  On the same 
day, Watts sent the government a letter stating that: 
 
This letter is in reference to RFP 0008 . . . .  Within our 
proposal response we have not included any time or cost 
impacts for the current impacts and any future delays.  As 
such we request verbiage to this effect be included in any 
modification as part of this proposal.  As of this time, these 
delays are not quantifiable due to the unknown time frame it 
will take to negotiate and receive a modification, submit and 
receive approved material submittals, then install the conduit.  
The conduit installation within quadrant “B” of the SATCOM 
building is the current delay and depending on the 
aforementioned sequence of events the manufacturing of the 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
4 
 
equipment and installation of such could have impacts in the 
future. 
 
**** 
 
On 10/28/15 a meeting was held . . . to review all outstanding 
electrical issues and to determine if a location for the 
UPS/Switchgear could be made.  During this meeting[,] 
Helix[, Watts’ subcontractor,] and Watts again notified the 
Government that the UPS/Switchgear supplier will not release 
any shop drawings or information without a Purchase Order.  
Without approved shop drawings Helix is unable to install the 
electrical conduits for the gear, which impacts installation of 
plumbing, concrete footings and slab work. 
 
(R4, tab 37) 
 
10.  The government never provided the Equipment or supporting submittal 
information, as required by the Contract.  Instead, the parties executed bilateral 
Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, which increased the contract price by 
$3,647,675 and required Watts to provide the Equipment.  Modification No. R00004 
indicated that “[t]he delays associated with this work are not quantifiable at this time,” 
and thus that the parties would negotiate a separate modification to address time. (R4, 
tab 19 at 1-2, 5) 
 
11.  Between October 17, 2016 and December 22, 2016, Watts submitted—and the 
government approved—submittals for the OPS Building UPS system and underground 
electrical conduit layout (R4, tabs 106-07, 109; ASUMF ¶¶ 51-53).  Upon receipt of the 
approved submittals, Watts was able to order the underground conduits, which were 
delivered to the project site on February 20, 2017 (ASUMF ¶ 54).  Thereupon, Watts 
commenced work in Area B of the OPS Building with installation of the underground 
conduits for the added OPS Building switchgear (ASUMF ¶ 55). 
 
12.  Following negotiations (ASUMF ¶¶ 57-60), the government sent Watts unilateral 
Modification No. P00005 on June 7, 2017 (app. supp. R4, tab 311; ASUMF ¶ 61).  
Modification No. P00005 addressed the Equipment delays by increasing the contract 
price by $2,480,450 and extending the contract completion date by 318 days (id.). 
 
13.  The final modified contract completion date was July 19, 2018 (R4, tab 31 at 1-2; 
ASUMF ¶ 16).  Watts achieved substantial completion on January 6, 2020 (R4, tab 31 
at 2; GSUMF ¶ 5). 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
5 
 
IV. Procedural History 
 
14.  On June 10, 2022, Watts submitted a certified claim (Claim), which attached, and 
relied upon, a March 21, 2022 Time Impact Analysis (TIA) (R4, tab 9). 3  The Claim 
sought a time extension until January 6, 2020, $5,493,720, recission of liquidated 
damages, release of the contract balance, and a change to Watts’ contractor performance 
assessment reporting system rating (id. at 1).  In the Claim, Watts asserted that it 
experienced 1,285 days of delay, consisting of 864 days of government-caused delays, 85 
days of contractor-caused or subcontractor-caused delays, and 336 days of concurrent 
delays (id. at 8).  Nevertheless, the Claim provided a 114-day credit to the government, 
stating that: 
 
[T]here are 864 days of delay for which the Government is 
solely responsible, resulting in 864 compensable days of 
delay.  However, Watts accepts the time extension granted in 
Mod P00002 of 114 calendar days.  As a result, Watts is only 
seeking 750 days of extended general conditions costs for 
itself and Helix in this certified claim.   
 
(Id. at 2 n.1)  In its Claim, Watts did not seek any additional time or compensation for the 
suspension beyond the 114 days and the $624,957.21 that Modification 
Nos. A00001/R00001 and P00002 respectively already had provided (id.; ASUMF ¶¶ 32-
33). 
 
15.  In particular, the Claim and the TIA identified three delays that are relevant to the 
Motion (R4, tab 9 at 7, 30).  First, the TIA asserted that the planned start of the critical-
path Ops Building foundations was September 4, 2015 (id. at 36).  However, 
government-delays in providing information on the Equipment for that building delayed 
the start of the building foundations by 19 days, until September 23, 2015 (GFCI 
Equipment Delay)
4 (id. at 7, 36). The TIA explained the GFCI Equipment Delay as 
follows: 
 
3 The Claim and the TIA divided the project into seven time-periods (R4, tab 9 at 7-8, 30-
31).  For purposes of deciding the Motion, three time-periods are relevant: (1) 
Time Period 1 (from February 20, 2015 to June 30, 2015); (2) Time Period 2 
(from June 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015); and (3) Time Period 3 (from 
September 30, 2015 to March 1, 2017) (id. at 30).   
4 The Claim and the TIA referred to that 19 day delay as “Delay to Completion of Ops 
Building Rough Grading/USACE failure to provide GFCI equipment info for 
underslab utility rough-in at Ops Building” (R4, tab 9 at 7, 30).  For ease of 
reference, we shorten that name to “GFCI Equipment Delay.” 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
6 
 
 
 USACE did not provide Watts with the required UPS 
and switchgear equipment information in the Contract 
Documents, which was necessary for Watts to complete its 
underground conduit design.  Indeed, Watts needed the 
design information to construct the critical path Ops Building 
foundations and slab-on-grade and properly coordinate its 
trades.  USACE’s failure to timely provide the required 
information resulted in extending the overall required 
duration for the Ops Building. 
 
 On September 24, 2015, USACE issued its RFP-0008 
entitled UPS and Switchgear for METS/Ops Building that 
requested Watts, and not USACE, [to] procure the UPS and 
switchgear equipment for both the Ops . . . and METS 
Buildings.  Under the Contract Documents, Watts was not 
required to procure the equipment. 
 
**** 
 
 Although Watts started the Ops Building foundations, 
it could only begin work at unimpacted Areas A, C, and D as 
a way to mitigate the delay caused by USACE’s failure to 
timely procure the Ops and METS Building UPS and 
switchgear equipment.  Watts’ 30Sep15 Schedule Update did 
not forecast an impact from RFP-0008 as the RFP was issued 
just before the schedule data date, therefore the full extent of 
the impact was unknown.  However, it was clear that USACE 
had extended the overall required duration for the Ops 
Building because of [a] lack of information needed by Watts 
to perform its critical path work.   
 
(Id. at 36-37)  Nevertheless, the Claim and the TIA acknowledged that the entire GFCI 
Equipment Delay was concurrent delay because delays by Watts’ subcontractor in 
performing site grading activities also delayed the start of the building foundation (id. 
at 7, 37).  Thus, the TIA asserted that it would “account for forecasted delays as they are 
either actualized or recovered in the subsequent time periods of this analysis” (id. at 37). 
 
16.  Second, the Claim and the TIA asserted that, even after the start of the Ops 
Building foundation on September 24, 2015, continued delay in either delivering—or 
modifying the Contract to require Watts to procure—the Equipment and the supporting 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
7 
 
submittal information adversely impacted the start of the critical-path foundation rebar 
activity in Ops Building Area B by 287 days, until July 6, 2016, when the government 
issued Modification No. R00004 requiring Watts to procure the Equipment (Delay to 
Modification No. R00004 Issuance) (R4, tab 9 at 7, 36-37, 40-41).  The TIA explained 
the Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance as follows: 
 
USACE issued Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, or 
286 cd later than the September 24, 2015 issuance of the RFP, 
and 287 cd after Watts’ September 23, 2015 actual start of 
critical path Ops Building foundation concrete work.  USACE 
failed to timely issue unilateral Mod R00004 preventing 
Watts from procuring the UPS and switchgear for the METS 
and Ops Building and preventing Watts from accurately 
reflecting the delay in its monthly updates at the time the 
impact occurred. 
 
(Id. at 41)  The TIA showed that the 287-day Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance 
occurred from September 23, 2015 to July 6, 2016 (id.). 
 
17.  Third, the Claim and the TIA asserted that, following the issuance of 
Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, Equipment submittal approval and 
procurement delays further delayed the completion of the underground conduit material 
procurement by 229 days, until February 20, 2017 (Submittals and Procurement for 
Switchgear/UPS Delay) (R4, tab 9 at 7, 42).  The TIA explained that the Submittals and 
Procurement for Switchgear/UPS Delay as follows: 
 
Following USACE issuance of Mod R00004, Watts 
proceeded to draft and transmit submittals for the UPS and 
switchgear, which were approved by USACE on October 17, 
2016.  Watts also submitted the subsequent underground 
electrical design, which was approved by USACE on 
December 22, 2016, or an overall duration of 169 cd[s] from 
the date USACE issued Mod R00004 through completion of 
submittals.  Watts completed procurement of the required 
underground conduit materials on Feb 20 2017, or 60 cd[s] 
later.  The overall submittal and procurement duration 
required 229 cd[s] to resolve. 
 
(Id. at 42)  The TIA showed that the 229-day Submittal and Procurement for 
Switchgear/UPS Delay occurred from July 6, 2016 through February 20, 2017 (id.). 
 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
8 
 
18.  However, according to the TIA, Watts issued a schedule update on March 1, 
2017, which mitigated the overall impact of those alleged government-caused delays by 
83 days through the performance of work in Areas A, C, and D out of sequence (id. at 43-
45).  Nevertheless, the Claim and the TIA offset that 83-day mitigation credit for out-of-
sequence work by the 19-day concurrent GFCI Equipment Delay (id. at 7, 45). 
 
19.  On August 21, 2023, the government issued a final decision denying the Claim 
(R4, tab 11). 
 
20.  This appeal followed. 
 
DECISION 
 
The government is entitled to summary judgment on one—but not all—of the 
purported delay claims upon which it bases the Motion. 
 
I. Summary Judgment Standard 
 
We will grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any 
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Celotex 
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).  All significant doubt over factual issues 
must be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.  Mingus 
Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  In deciding 
summary judgment motions, we do not resolve controversies, weigh evidence, or make 
credibility determinations.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).  
Moreover, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.  Id.  A genuine 
issue of material fact arises when the non-movant presents sufficient evidence upon 
which a reasonable fact-finder, drawing the requisite inferences and applying the 
applicable evidentiary standard, could decide the issue in favor of the non-movant.  C. 
Sanchez & Son, Inc. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 
 
II. Statute of Limitations 
 
The government argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact but that the 
statute of limitations bars any claims regarding the suspension of work, GFCI Equipment 
Delay, Delay to Mod R00004 Issuance, and the Submittals and Procurement Delay (gov’t 
mot. at 12-13).  Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), “[e]ach claim by a contractor 
against the Federal Government relating to a contract . . . shall be submitted within 6 
years after the accrual of the claim.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103.  The CDA does not define the 
term “accrual of the claim,” but the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)—to which we 
look, Patricia I. Romero, Inc., d/b/a/ Pacific West Builders, ASBCA No. 63093, 23-1 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
9 
 
BCA ¶ 38,362 at 186,288—defines that term as “the date when all events, that fix the 
alleged liability of . . . the Government . . . and permit assertion of the claim, were known 
or should have been known.  For liability to be fixed, some injury must have occurred.  
However, monetary damages need not have been incurred.”  FAR 33.201, 
DEFINITIONS.  Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, it is the 
burden of the party asserting the defense to prove it applies.  Patricia I. Romero, 23-1 
BCA ¶ 38,362 at 186,288.  Ascertaining claim accrual is a fact-intensive inquiry that is 
done on a case-by-case basis.  Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., ASBCA No. 62209, 22-
1 BCA ¶ 38,112 at 185,128.  As discussed in greater detail below, there is a genuine issue 
of material fact as to whether the statute of limitations bars any claims regarding the 
suspension, the GFCI Equipment Delay, and the Submittals and Procurement Delay.  
However, there is no genuine issue of material fact but that the statute of limitations bars 
Watts’ Delay to Mod R00004 Issuance claim. 
 
 A.  Suspension Delay  
 
Watts is not asserting a claim regarding the suspension, so there is no claim for the 
statute of limitations to bar.  As a result of the suspension, bilateral Modification Nos. 
A00001/R00001 and P00002 extended the contract completion date by 114 days, and 
increased the contract price by $624,957.21, respectively (SOF ¶ 5).  In its Claim, Watts 
did not seek any additional time or compensation for the suspension beyond that provided 
by Modification Nos. A00001/R00001 and P00002 (SOF ¶ 14).  Rather, the Claim 
merely identified the 114-day extension as a credit to the government (id.).  Therefore, 
there is no suspension delay claim for the statute of limitations to preclude. 
 
 B.  Purported GFCI Equipment Delay Claim 
 
Watts has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute of 
limitations bars any claim regarding the GFCI Equipment Delay.  Watts argues that, 
because the GFCI Equipment Delay was non-compensable concurrent delay that it 
merely offset against a mitigation credit to the government for advancing areas A, C and 
D of the Ops Building in the March 1, 2017 schedule update, Watts did not know, and 
should not have known, of the events fixing the government’s liability for that offset until 
at least when the mitigation occurred in the March 1, 2017 schedule (app. opp’n at 9-10).  
In its reply, the government fails to respond to that argument (see gov’t reply).  Watts is 
correct that the TIA merely offsets the 19 days of concurrent GFCI Equipment Delay 
against a mitigation credit to the government in the March 1, 2017 schedule (SOF ¶ 18).  
Absent any evidence—or even argument—to the contrary from the government, that 
raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Watts knew, or should have known, 
of all the events that fixed the government’s liability for the offset prior to the mitigation 
occurring in the March 1, 2017 schedule.  Indeed, Watts could not have known that there 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
10 
 
would be a mitigation credit to offset until the March 1, 2017 schedule established that 
mitigation. 
 
 C.  Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance Claim 
 
  1.  The Statute of Limitations Bars the Delay to Modification No. R00004   
  Issuance Claim 
 
There is no genuine issue of material fact but that the statute of limitations bars 
Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim.  For government-caused delay 
claims, the claim accrues when the wrongful acts or omissions allegedly committed by 
the government that caused the delay occurred, and the contractor knew, or should have 
known, of the delay-causing event.  Restoration Specialists, LLC, ASBCA No. 63284, 
23-1 BCA ¶ 38,466, at 186,960-61.  Moreover, “[t]he events fixing liability are presumed 
to have been known when they occurred unless it is reasonable to find they have been 
either concealed or were inherently unknowable at the time.”  Id. at 186,961 (quotation 
omitted).  At a minimum, we agree with a decision by the United States Court of Federal 
Claims which held that a contractor knows, or should know, of a claim that the 
government’s untimely issuance of a modification was causing delay when the contractor 
notified the government of the delay’s adverse impact upon construction.  Al-Juthoor 
Contracting Co. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 599, 614 (Fed. Cl. 2016). 
 
Here, Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim is that the 
government’s alleged delay in either delivering—or modifying the Contract to require 
Watts to procure—the Equipment and the supporting submittal information adversely 
impacted the start of the critical-path foundation rebar activity in OPS Building Area B 
from September 23, 2015 to July 6, 2015 (SOF ¶ 16).  Thus, the events that fixed the 
government’s alleged liability and permitted the assertion of the claim were the 
government’s alleged delay in either delivering—or modifying the Contract to require 
Watts to procure—the Equipment and the supporting submittal information, adversely 
impacting the start of critical-path foundation rebar activity in OPS Building Area B.  
According to the Claim and the TIA, the government’s delay in either delivering—or 
modifying the Contract to require Watts to procure—the Equipment and the supporting 
submittal information began adversely impacting the critical path foundation rebar 
activity in the Ops Building Area B by September 2015 (id.).   
 
Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact but that Watts knew, or should 
have known, of those events fixing the government’s alleged liability by September or 
October of 2015.  First, there is no evidence suggesting that the government concealed 
the purported delay in either delivering—or modifying the Contract to require Watts to 
procure—the Equipment and the supporting submittal information, or that that purported 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
11 
 
fact was inherently unknowable at the time.  On the contrary, the undisputed evidence 
shows that, instead of providing the Equipment or supporting submittal information in 
response to an inquiry from Watts about the government’s failure to provide the 
supporting submittal information, the government notified Watts on June 3, 2015 and 
September 24, 2015, that it planned on issuing a modification to have Watts provide the 
Equipment (SOF ¶¶ 6-7).  Yet, Watts was aware that the government did not issue that 
modification to Watts until July 6, 2016, and did not deliver the Equipment or supporting 
submittal information in the interim (SOF ¶ 10).   
 
Nor is there any evidence that the government concealed the fact that the alleged 
delay obtaining the Equipment and the supporting submittal information was delaying 
construction, or that that fact was inherently unknowable at the time.  On the contrary, the 
undisputed evidence shows that Watts demonstrated its awareness of the fact that the 
alleged delay obtaining the Equipment and the supporting submittal information was 
delaying construction by notifying the government in the September 30, 2015 schedule 
narrative report that the “drop dead date for submittal information” had passed (SOF ¶ 8).  
Further, at an October 28, 2015 meeting, “Watts again notified the Government that the 
UPS/Switchgear supplier will not release any shop drawings or information without a 
Purchase Order.  Without approved shop drawings Helix is unable to install the electrical 
conduits for the gear, which impacts installation of plumbing, concrete footings and slab 
work.”  (SOF ¶ 9).  Moreover, in the October 30, 2015 letter, Watts notified the 
government that, “[t]he conduit installation within quadrant “B” of the SATCOM 
building is the current delay . . . .” (id. (emphasis added)).  Indeed, in the TIA, Watts 
acknowledged that, while the full extent of the delay was unknown on September 30, 
2015, “it was clear that USACE had extended the overall required duration for the Ops 
Building because of [the] lack of information needed by Watts to perform its critical path 
work.”  (SOF ¶ 15).   
 
Because Watts knew, or should have known, in September or October of 2015 of 
the events that fixed the government’s alleged liability and permitted the assertion of the 
Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim—namely, that the delays obtaining the 
Equipment and the supporting submittal information were adversely impacting 
construction—Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim accrued in 
September or October of 2015.  However, Watts waited more than six years until June 
10, 2022, to file its Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim (SOF ¶ 14).  
Therefore, the statute of limitations bars the Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance 
claim. 
 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
12 
 
 2.  Watts’ Arguments to the Contrary Are Meritless 
 
Watts raises three main arguments to the contrary, none of which have merit.  
First, Watts argues that the Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim did not 
accrue until the government issued Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, at the 
earliest because Watts did not have a duty to provide the Equipment until the government 
issued Modification No. R00004 (app. opp’n at 11, 15).  However, that argument ignores 
the nature of Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim.  “To determine 
when the alleged liability was fixed, we begin by examining the legal basis of the 
particular claim.”  Hanley Indus., Inc., ASBCA No. 58198, 14- 1 BCA ¶ 35,500 at 
174,016.  Moreover, “the statute of limitations runs against each distinct liability-creating 
event having its own associated damages.”  Patricia I. Romero, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,362 
at 186,289.  Here, the legal basis for the Delay to Mod R00004 Issuance claim is not that 
Watts’ fulfilling its new duty to provide the Equipment pursuant to Modification No. 
R00004 after July 6, 2016, caused delay.  That is the legal basis for the Submittals and 
Procurement Delay claim discussed below (SOF ¶ 17).  Rather, the legal basis for the 
Delay to Modification No.  R00004 Issuance claim is that delay in either delivering—or 
modifying the Contract to require Watts to procure—the Equipment and the supporting 
submittal information adversely impacted construction from when Watts was ready to 
start the Ops Building foundation on September 23, 2015, until the government issued 
Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016 (SOF ¶ 16).  As discussed above, Watts knew, 
or should have known, of all of the events necessary to fix the alleged liability for that 
claim when the delay in either delivering—or modifying the Contract to require Watts to 
procure—the Equipment began delaying the Ops Building foundation work in September 
or October of 2015.
5 
 
 
5 In support of its argument that the Delay to Mod R00004 Issuance claim did not accrue 
until the government issued Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, at the 
earliest because Watts did not have a duty to provide the Equipment until the 
government issued Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, Watts points to the 
hypothetical that the government could have changed its mind about requiring 
Watts to provide the Equipment until it issued Modification No. R00004.  Watts 
argues that that would have nullified the Delay to Modification No. R00004 
Issuance claim.  (Opp’n 15-16) However, if the government changed its mind and 
decided not to issue Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, it then would have 
had to deliver the Equipment to Watts under the original Contract terms on July 6, 
2016.  That would not nullify Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance 
claim because the government still allegedly would have delayed the start of the 
critical-path foundation rebar activity by delaying the procurement of the 
Equipment until July 6, 2016 through its untimely failure either to deliver—or 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
13 
 
Second, Watts argues that the Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim 
did not accrue until the government issued Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016, at 
the earliest because the delays were not quantifiable until the issuance of Modification 
No. R00004 (app. opp’n at 14, 16-17).  Watts is correct that the TIA acknowledged that 
the full extent of the delay was unknown on September 30, 2015, and the October 30, 
2015 letter acknowledged that the delays were not quantifiable on October 30, 2015 (SOF 
¶¶ 9, 15).  However, we have held that “[i]t is enough that some dollar figure can be 
placed on the claim, even if the total amount that will eventually be claimed cannot yet be 
determined.”  Patricia I. Romero, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,362 at 186,289.  Thus, “[the] claimant 
need not be aware of the full impact of its increased costs/damages for its claim to accrue; 
however, for liability to be fixed at least some injury to the claimant must be shown.”  
Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 at 172,065.  Here, as 
discussed above, there is no genuine issue of material fact but that Watts suffered at least 
some injury in September or October of 2015.  The TIA asserted that it was clear on 
September 30, 2015, that the lack of information on the Equipment was extending the 
requirement duration (SOF ¶ 15).  Moreover, the October 30, 2015 letter acknowledged 
that Watts currently was experiencing delay on October 30, 2025 (SOF ¶ 9).  Because 
Watts suffered at least some injury in September and October of 2015 from the alleged 
delays obtaining the Equipment and the supporting submittal information, its claim 
accrued in September or October 2015, even though it was not aware of the full impact of 
that delay at that time. 
 
Third, Watts argues that, under Patricia I. Romero, the Delay to Mod R00004 
Issuance claim did not accrue until the government issued unilateral Modification No. 
P00005 on June 7, 2017, because only at that point did Watts know, or should it have 
known, that the government would not be compensating Watts adequately for the 
Equipment delays (app. opp’n at 18-21).  Watts reads Patricia I. Romero too broadly.  
Patricia I. Romero merely held that a contractor knew, or should have known, that it 
suffered some injury by the time that the parties executed modifications that allegedly 
inadequately compensated the contractor.  23-1 BCA ¶ 38,362 at 186,289.  The Board did 
not need to—and did not—address whether the contractor’s claim may have accrued 
earlier because the Board found that the contractor failed to file its claim within six years 
of the modifications, and the parties did not dispute whether the claim accrued earlier.  
Id.; see also Restoration Specialists, LLC, ASBCA No. 63284, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,466.  
Indeed, holding that the Delay to Mod R00004 Issuance claim did not accrue until the 
government issued unilateral Modification No. P00005 would be inconsistent with 
Patricia I. Romero.  As discussed above, Patricia I. Romero held that the total amount of 
damage need not be determined for a claim to accrue.  23-1 BCA ¶ 38,362, at 186,289.  
 
modify the Contract to require Watts to procure—the Equipment and the 
supporting submittal information (SOF ¶ 16). 

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
14 
 
Here, as modification R00004 acknowledged, the reason that the government waited until 
the issuance of Modification No. P00005 to add time to the Contract for the Equipment 
delays was because the total amount of damage could not be determined earlier (SOF ¶ 
10).  Thus, to hold that Watts’ Delay to Modification No.  R00004 Issuance claim could 
not accrue until the issuance of Modification No. P00005 would require us to hold that a 
claim cannot accrue until the total amount of damage can be determined, which would be 
inconsistent with Patricia I. Romero, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,362, 186,289; see also Lockheed 
Martin, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017, 172,065.   
 
In sum, because none of Watts’ arguments to the contrary have merit, its Delay to 
Modification No. R00004 Issuance claim accrued in September or October of 2016, and 
thus the statute of limitations bars that claim.    
 
 D.  Submittals and Procurement Delay Claim 
 
Watts has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute of 
limitations bars its Submittals and Procurement Delay claim.  According to Watts’ 
certified claim, Watts’ Submittals and Procurement Delay claim is that, following the 
issuance of Modification No. R00004, there were delays in the approval of Equipment 
submittals and the Equipment procurement from when the parties executed Modification 
No. R00004 requiring Watts to procure the Equipment on July 6, 2016, to the completion 
of Watts’ procurement of the required underground conduit materials on February 20, 
2017 (SOF ¶ 17).  A reasonable fact-finder, drawing the requisite inferences and applying 
the applicable evidentiary standard, could decide based upon that evidence that Watts did 
not know, and could not have known, of the events fixing liability for that claim before 
the parties executed Modification No. R00004 on July 6, 2016.  Because that is less than 
six years before Watts filed its certified claim on June 10, 2022, Watts has raised a 
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute of limitations precludes its 
Submittals and Procurement Delay claim.  Accordingly, summary judgment is not 
appropriate. 
  

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. 
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.   
This version has been approved for public release.                                                                                        
 
15 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons discussed above, the motion for summary judgment is granted in 
part, and denied in part, and we strike Watts’ Delay to Modification No. R00004 Issuance 
claim. 
 
 Dated:  September 25, 2025  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JAMES R. SWEET 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 J. REID PROUTY 
Administrative Judge 
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. 63753,
 Appeal of Watts 
Constructors, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals