DENIED:  April 18, 2024
CBCA 7684
ENFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
Casey J. McKinnon of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, Washington,
DC, counsel for Appellant.
Gabriel D. Soll, Office of Acquisition and Procurement Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; and Brad Blevins, Legal
Service Command, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Norfolk,
VA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, RUSSELL, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge.
Enfield Enterprises, Inc. (Enfield) appealed the denial of its claim for costs arising
from weather delays that it experienced on its contract with the United States Coast Guard
(USCG), following delays and modifications to the contract to address various contract
issues.  We find that Enfield’s claim is barred by the language of a release and deny the
claim.


CBCA 7684 2
Statement of Facts
I. Contract Terms and Performance
In May 2019, USCG awarded a task order to Enfield for the renovation of the Coast
Guard Station in Grand Isle, Louisiana, at a cost of approximately $2 million.  Appeal File,
Exhibit 2 at 3-4.1  The task order set May 5, 2020, as the date for completion.  Id. at 3.
The parties modified the contract four times.  The first modification, executed on
April 29, 2020, increased the contract price by $351,949 and the time for performance by
sixty days, to July 3, 2020.  Exhibit 7 at 1.  The modification required Enfield to perform
additional abatement work for asbestos and lead-based paint.  Id.  The modification
contained no release language.
The second modification, executed on May 30, 2020, increased the contract price by
$889,564.45 and the time for performance by seventy days, to September 11, 2020. 
Exhibit 12 at 2.  The modification was necessary to address additional work to the external
insulation, a mechanical room, and an additional room.  Id.; Exhibit 10 at 2.  The
modification contained no release language.
The third modification, executed on September 2, 2020, extended the time for
performance by fifty-one days, to November 1, 2020, but did not increase the contract price. 
Exhibit 15 at 1.  The modification was necessary to address the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic and Tropical Storm Cristobal.  Id.  The modification contained no release
language.
The fourth modification, executed on March 2, 2021, increased the contract price by
$554,723.94 and extended the time for performance by 123 days, sixty days to perform the
additional work and sixty-three days to account for USCG’s delay in processing the
modification, to April 27, 2021.  Exhibit 19 at 1-2.  The modification was necessary to add
scope for roof and HVAC repairs and mold remediation following hurricanes and tropical
storms.  Id. at 1; see Exhibit 18 (Enfield’s proposal, dated December 10, 2020).  The
modification included a broad release:  “In consideration of this time extension, the
Contractor releases the Government form [sic] any and all claims and liability under or by
virtue of this contract or any modification.”  Id. at 2.
On April 14, 2021, USCG issued a certificate of beneficial occupancy for the project. 
Exhibit 21.
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.

CBCA 7684 3
II. Enfield’s Claim
In August 2022, Enfield submitted a claim to the contracting officer, seeking payment
of $186,152.88 for delays due to government changes and unforeseeable weather conditions. 
Exhibit 22.  Enfield claimed thirty-nine days of delay arising from six hurricanes and tropical
storms that occurred between June 4 and November 3, 2020.  Id. at 9.  Enfield alleged that
because of Government errors and omissions that required modifications to the contract, its
construction work was “pushed . . . into [this period of] adverse weather.”  Id. at 3-4. 
The contracting officer denied the claim in December 2022, and Enfield timely
appealed the denial.  The parties agreed to submit the appeal for decision on the record
pursuant to Board Rule 19.  48 CFR 6101.19 (2023).
Discussion
Enfield asserts that it is entitled to the days of weather delay because, but for the other
problems experienced on the contract, which were the source of modifications, it would have
completed the contract by the original contract completion date of May 5, well before the
hurricanes and tropical storms that caused its delays.  Enfield asserts that the Government-
caused delays constituted either a constructive suspension or a cardinal change.  Enfield
relies upon a line of cases that provide that government agencies can be liable for additional
costs incurred if performance was pushed to a period of adverse weather because of other
contract issues for which the agency is responsible.  See, e.g., Labco Construction, Inc.,
AGBCA 90-115-1, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,910, at 134,001; DTC Engineers & Constructors, LLC,
ASBCA 57614, 12-1 BCA ¶ 34,967, at 171,898.  The problem with Enfield’s claim is that
it is foreclosed by the release to which it agreed in modification four.
“A release executed by a contractor will normally bar any existing claims except those
reserved within the terms of the release.”  Siska Construction Co., VABCA 3470, 92-1 BCA
¶ 24,578, at 122,607 (1991), motion for reconsideration denied, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,729.  The
contractor bears the burden to identify and specify claims to be reserved at the time a release
is drafted “[s]ince the information regarding any unresolved claims against the government
lies with the contractor.”  Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1394
(Fed. Cir. 1987).  “Absent special, limited, circumstances, a general release bars claims based
upon events occurring prior to the date of the release.”  Riennes Construction Co., IBCA
3572-96, et al., 98-2 BCA ¶ 29,821, at 147,658.  Special circumstances include “the
Government’s postrelease consideration of a claim, economic duress, fraud, mutual mistake,
or obvious unilateral mistake by the contractor.”  Id. (citing Mingus, 812 F.2d at 1395).
The release in modification four is very broad—Enfield agreed to release USCG from
“any and all claims and liability under or by virtue of this contract or any modification.” 

CBCA 7684 4
This language bars Enfield’s delay claim because that claim arises from the Government’s
errors which led to the modifications to the contract that pushed its performance past the
May 5 completion date.  The release contained no exceptions, and Enfield has not alleged
any circumstances (e.g., mutual mistake) that would allow the Board to consider the claim
despite the release.  Moreover, all of the facts underlying the claim had occurred by the date
that Enfield signed the release.  For these reasons, Enfield’s claim is foreclosed by the
release.2
Enfield argues that the release does not foreclose its claim because there is no mention
of weather delays in the text of the release.  Enfield’s claim is not based upon weather delays.
Its claim arises from the other modifications to the contract, which, according to Enfield,
pushed its work into the period of adverse weather.  Because Enfield agreed to release all
claims arising from those modifications, it cannot pursue its claim for costs incurred as the
result of adverse weather.
Decision
The appeal is DENIED.
   Marian E. Sullivan     
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge
We concur:
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      Beverly M. Russell        
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge Board Judge
2 Because we resolve the case based upon the language of the release, we do not
reach the USCG’s accord and satisfaction argument.