ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Petition of -- ) 
) 
SoCo-Piedmont J.V., LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W912QR-10-C-0082 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE PETITIONER: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59318-946 
Charles W. Surasky, Esq. 
Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP 
Atlanta, GA 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Deena G. Braunstein, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorney 
U.S. Army Engineer District, 
Louisville 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER 
SoCo-Piedmont J.V., LLC (SPJV or petitioner) petitions the Board, under Board 
Rule l(e), for an order directing the contracting officer (CO) to issue a decision on its 
26 February 2014 claim no later than 4 August 2014. In response, the government 
maintains that the 31 October 2014 date provided by the CO for issuance of her final 
decision is reasonable. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Contract 
Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. 
ST A TEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE PETITION 
1. On 16 September 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville 
District, awarded Contract No. W912QR-10-C-0082 to SPJV in the amount of 
$10,779,237 for the construction of an Army Reserve Training Center in Winder, 
Georgia (contract at 1-2). 
2. By letter dated 26 February 2014, SPJV submitted a claim seeking 
$1,919,464.20 and a 160-day extension of time. SPJV's claim was divided into 
numerous parts, including remission of liquidated damages, alleged improper 
withholdings, extended field overhead, unabsorbed home office overhead, an unsuitable 
soils claim, a pond design claim, a subcontractor claim, and "Miscellaneous Claims." 
The claim was certified in accordance with the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b). (Gov't opp'n, 
tab 1) SPJV delivered its claim to the CO on 28 February 2014 (pet. at 1). 

3. By letter dated 29 April 2014, 60 days after receipt of SPJV's claim, the CO 
informed SPJV that the original CO was no longer with the agency and that she would 
issue a decision on the claim on or before 31October2014 (gov't opp'n, tab 2). 
4. Pursuant to Board Rule l(e), SPJV petitioned the Board, by letter dated 14 May 
2014, requesting an order directing the CO to issue a decision on its claim no later than 
4 August 
2014. 
DECISION 
Under the CDA, within 60 days of receipt of a certified claim over $100,000, a CO 
must either issue a decision on the claim or notify the contractor of the time within which 
a decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2). In this instance, the CO notified SPJV, 
within 60 days of receipt of SP JV' s claim, that she would issue a decision on or before 
31 October 2014 (SOF ii 3). However, the CDA further requires that the CO issue a 
decision on a claim 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). 
The CDA provides that 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(e) implements this section of the CDA, providing 
that "[i]n lieu of filing a notice of appeal under (b) or ( c) of this Rule, the contractor may 
request the Board to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period 
of time, as determined by the Board, in the event of undue delay on the part of the 
contracting officer." 
Here, SP JV objects to the 31 October 2014 date established by the CO for issuing 
her decision as being unreasonable and claims undue delay (pet. at 1-2). Petitioner 
instead seeks a decision on its claim by 4 August 2014 (pet. at 1). SPJV does not explain 
why the 31 October 2014 date is unreasonable. Rather, petitioner merely states that 
"[f]ive months is a more than adequate time to render a decision on a $1.2 million 
[claim]" (pet. at 2). 1 
Whether the date established by the CO for the issuance of a decision is reasonable 
is determined on a case-by-case basis. Pub. Warehousing Co., K.S.C., ASBCA 
No. 56888, 09-2 BCA ii 34,265 at 169,307. The government maintains that eight months 
(from its 28 February 2014 receipt of petitioner's claim until 31 October 2014) is a 
reasonable period of time in which to issue a decision. The government notes that 
SPJV's claim letter identifies eight main sub-issues, that SPJV provided three binders of 
1 Petitioner's claim, however, is approximately $1.9 million, not $1.2 million (SOF if 2). 
2 

supporting documentation with its claim, and that the supporting documentation provided 
are not well organized (gov't opp'n at 1-3). The government further maintains that the 
CO must review 9 boxes of documents, 3 years worth of correspondence, 125 Requests 
for Information and responses thereto, and over 1,900 pages of quality control and quality 
assurance reports (gov't resp. to 10 June 2014 Order at 2). The government also avers 
that the field personnel familiar with the contract are no longer with the agency and are 
thus unavailable to assist the CO in her review (gov't opp'n at 3). Although petitioner 
disagrees with the government's characterization of its claim as disorganized (pet. reply 
at l), SPJV does not otherwise deny or contest the government's assertions. Under these 
circumstances, we conclude that the 31 October 2014 date for issuance of the CO's 
decision is reasonable. See Eaton Contract Servs., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 52686, 52796, 
00-2 BCA iJ 31,039 at 153,273 ("Given the volume of documentation provided by [the 
contractor] in support of its claim, number of claim issues and quantity of time needed to 
gather information as a result of relocation of personnel familiar with the claim, we 
conclude that eight months is a reasonable period of time in which to render a final 
decision."). Accordingly, SPJV's petition is denied. 
Dated: 11 July 2014 
I concur 
) 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
3 
~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
Administr tive Judge 
Armed Se ices 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. 59318-946, Petition of 
SoCo-Piedmont J.V., LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals