## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 4-4 2 3 C (Fi l edFeb ru ary

2 7 , 2 0 1 5 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E&E ENTERPRISES GLOBAL, INC.,
Pla i n t i

f f ,

v
. THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d a n t

. *

* * * * * * * * * * Co n t ract s ; Wro n g fu l Term i n at i o n Cl ai m ; Al l eg at io n s o f BadFai t h Co n du ctb y

th e Go v ern m en t ; Wh eth er t h e “ Sam e Cl ai m ” W as Pres en t edt o t h e Co nt ract i ng Offi cer.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A. Ar i Gh os a l , Bet h es d a, M D, fo r p lai n ti ff.
Ja mes W . Po i r i er , Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f J u s ti ce, wi t h wh o m were Jo yce R. Br a nd

a , Act i n g As si s tan tAt t o rn ey Gen eral , Ro b er t

E. Ki r sch ma n, Jr

. , Di rect o r, Do n a ld E. Ki n n er , As s i s t an tDi rect o r, W as h i n gt on , DC, fo r d efen d an t

.

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ OPI NI ON

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ BUSH , S en i o r Ju d g e . Pl ai n t i ff E&E En terp ri s es Gl o b al , In c. (E&E) fi l edi ts co m p l ai n t o n M ay

1 5 , 2 0 1 4 . Th e co u rth as b efo re i t d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i s s t h i s s u i t b ro u g h t p u rs u an t t o Ru l es 1 2 (b )(1 ) an d1 2 (b )(6 ) o f t he Ru les o f t h e Un i t edSt at es Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC). In the al t ern at i ve, d efen d an t req u es t s t h at“ t h e Co u rt g ran to u r m o t i on t o req u i re E&E t o fi le an am en d edco m p l ai nt s et t i ng fo rt h aco n ci s e s t at em en to f an y cl ai m (i n cl u d in g s p eci fi c cau s at i o n an dd am ag es el em en t s p ert i n en tt o each p art i cu l ar cl ai m ) rem ai ni n g aft er t h e Co u rt h as d eci d ed o u r m o t io n t o d is m i s s th e co m p l ai n t .” Def.’ s M o t . at1 -2 . Defen d an t ’ s m o t i o n h as b een fu l l y

b ri efed , i n cl u di n g s u r-rep l i es . Oral arg u m en t was h el dDecem b er 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 . Fo r t h e reas on s s et fo rt h b el o w, d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n i s g ran t edi n p artan d d en iedi n p art

. BACKGROUND 1
I . Genera l Na ture o f the Di s pute
E&E “ i s an i n fo rm at i o n t ech n o l o g y . . . an d b ro adb an d s o l u t i on s p ro v i d er o fferi n g m an ag edan du n m an ag eds erv i ces t o g o v ern m en t an d co m m erci al cu s t o m ers .” Co m

pl . ¶ 3 . Th e Defen s e In fo rm at i o n Tech n o l o g y Co n t ract i n g Org an i zat i on (DITCO) i s s u edSo l i ci t at i o n HC1 0 1 3 -0 8 -R-2 0 0 4 o n M arch 1 7 , 2 0 0 8

. Id

. ¶ 5 . E&E res p on dedt o th e s o li ci t at i o n o n M ay 2 6 , 2 00 8

. Id

. ¶ 1 6 . E&E was award ed t h e co n t ract o n Au g u s t2 2, 2 0 0 8

. Id

. ¶ 1 8

. Th e co n t ract was t erm i n at edfo r t h e co n ven i en ce o f t h e g o vern m en t o n M arch 1 2 , 2 0 0 9

. Id

. ¶ 7 1

. Referen ci n g a n u m

b er o f l eg al t h eo ri es , E&E s eek s “ ju s tco m p en s at i o n ” rel at edt o i t s p erfo rm an ce u n d er t h e co n t ract

. Id

. ¶ 1

. I I . Ty pe o f W o rk

Requi red by the Co ntra ct
Acco rd i ng t o th e co m

p l ai n t , the co n tract was fo r a “ Bro adb an dan d Very Sm al l Ap ert u re Term i n al (VSAT) n et wo rkt o b e i n s t al l edat Defen s e Co m m i s s ary Ag en cy (DeCA) s i t es i n an d o u t s i d e o f t h e co n t i n en t al Un i t edSt at es (CONUS).” Co m p l . ¶ 5 . Thus , DeCA i s v i ewedas DITCO’ s cl i en to r cu s t o m er fo r t h e co n t ract s erv i ces
. 2 Id

. Ex . 6 at5 . “ Th e p ro cu rem en t was i n ten d ed t o au g m en tth e ex i s t i n g n et wo rkan d p ro v i d e d at a co m m u n i cat i o n s t o [DeCA] co m m i s s ari es wo rl d wi d e (ap p ro x im at el y 17 4 CONUS an d8 6 OCONUS l o cat i o n s ) an d1 0 OCONUS Cen tral Di s t ri b u t i o n Cen t ers .” Id

. ¶ 6

.

1 / The facts recited here are taken from the complaint and the parties’ briefs and appear to be undisputed for the purpose of deciding defendant’s motion. Other than to determine the court’s jurisdiction over this suit, the court makes no finding s of fact in this opinion.

2 / Any g eneral reference to the “ag ency” in this opinion is to DI T CO, or DeCA, or both entities. 2I I I . Co ntra cti ng Vehi cl e

Th e s o l i ci t at i o n was a “ co m p et i t i v e 8 (a) s et -as i d e” fo r s m al l b u s i n es s es
. Co m p l . ¶ 5 . E&E was , atal l rel ev an tt i m es , a cert i fi ed8 (a) s m al l b u s i n es s. Id

. ¶ 1 6. Un d er t h e 8 (a) p ro g ram , th e Sm al l Bu s i n es s Ad m i ni s t rat i o n (SBA)

co n t ract s wi t h fed eral ag en ci es t o p ro v i d e g o o d s an d s erv i ces , an ds ub co n t ract s th e act u al p erfo rm an ce o f th e wo rkt o d i s ad van t ag edb u s i nes s es th ath av e b een cert i fi edb y

SBA as el i gi b l e fo r s u ch co n t ract s
. Ver i d yn e Co r p . v. Un i ted

Sta t es , 7 5 8 F.3 d1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 4 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 1 4 ). Th e s m al l b u s i n es s p erfo rm i n g th e co nt ract s erv i ces i s g en eral l y referred t o as t h e 8 (a) co n tract or. FAR 1 9 .8 0 0 (a), 4 8 C.F.R. § 1 9 .8 0 0 (a) (2 0 1 4). 3 Al t h o ug h m i n d fu l o f t h e SBA’ s ro l e i n t h e co n tract i n g p ro ces s , fo r p urp o ses o f t hi s o p i ni o n the co u rt refers t o E&E as th e co nt ract or an d refers t o t h e ag en cy as th e co n tract i n g au t h o ri t y o n t h e g o v ern m en ts i d e. Its h o ul d b e n o t edth at E&E al s o en g ag eda s ub co n t ract o r, Hu g hes Net wo rkSy s t em s (HNS), t o s upp o rti t s p erfo rm an ce o f t he co n tract s erv i ces . Co m

p l . ¶ 2 2

. Th e co n t ract , HC1 0 1 3 -0 8 -D-0 0 3 4 , was a “ fi rm fi x ed -p ri ce co n t ract ” wi t h a o n e-y ear b as e p eri o dan dth ree ad di t i o n al o p ti o n y ears
. 4 Co m p l. Ex . 6 at3 . Of p art i cu l ar i n t eres tfo r t h e d i s p u t e p res en t edi n t h i s s u i t, th e co nt ract v eh i cl e ch o s en b y th e ag en cy

was an In d efi n i te Del i very/ In d efi n i te Qu an t i t y (IDIQ) co n t ract

. Id

. at1 0 . On ce t h e m i n i m

u m p u rch as e h as b een m ad e i n an IDIQ co n t ract , wh i ch i n t h i s cas e was o n l y

“ $ 5 0 0 0 fo r th e fi rs tp i l o ts i t e,” id

. at 3 , th e ag en cy i s u n d er n o fu rt her o b l i g at i o n t o p u rch as e an y rem ai n i ng s erv i ces co n t em p l at ed b y th e co n tract

. S

ee, e.g
. , Tr a vel

Cen tr e v. Ba rr a m , 2 36 F.3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 1 9 (Fed

. Ci r. 2 0 01 ) (s t at i n g th at“ u n d er an IDIQ co n t ract , th e g o v ern m en ti s req u i redt o p u rch as e t h e

3 / All citations to the F ederal Acquisition Reg ulation (F AR) are to the current version of Title 48 of the Code of F ederal Reg u lations. The parties have not noted any material differences between the version of the F A R in effect at the time of the events pertinent to this dispute and the current version of the F AR.

4 / As noted by

the ag ency

in its responses to bidder questions, a fix ed-price contract places the risk of loss on the contractor if the bid price is too low to cover the costs of performance. Def.’s Mot. App. at 713. 3m i n i m

u m qu an t i t y st at edi n t h e co n t ract , b u twh enth e g o v ern m en tm ak es t h at p u rch as e i t s l eg al o b li g at i o n u n d er t h e co n t racti s s at i sfi ed ” (ci t i n g Ma s on v. Un i ted St a t es , 6 1 5 F.2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 (Ct . Cl . 1 9 8 0 ))). Th e co n tract m ax i m u m i n t h i s cas e was $ 1 2

. 5 m i ll i o n d o l l ars . Co m pl

. Ex

. 6 at3

. On e o f t h e ch aract eri s t i cs o f a t y p i cal IDIQ co n t ract i s th atth e co nt racti s i m p l em en t edb y

a s eri es o f t as ko rd ers , wh ich o rd er s p eci fi c am o u n ts o r i t em s o f wo rk

. S ee Co m pl . Ex . 6 at 3 (referen ci ng t as k o rd ers ). Th e d i s p u t ed co nt ract d i s cu s s es th e t erm

“ t as ko rd er” i n n u m ero u s p ro v i s io ns . Inth e “ Ord eri n g ” s ect i o n , t h e co n t ract o r i s n o t i fi edth at :

An y s up p l i es an ds erv i ces t o b e fu rn i s hedu n der t hi s co n t ract s h al l b e o rd ered b y i ss u an ce o f d el i v ery o rd ers o r t as ko rd ers by

th e i n di v idu al s o r act iv i t i es d es ig n at ed i n th e Sch edu le. Su ch o rd ers m ay b e i s s uedfro m

d at e o f awardth ro u g h o u t t h e co n tract b as e p eri o d , an dcan co n t i n u e up thro u g h th e t h irdo p t i o n y ear i f ex erci s ed

. Id

. at1 0 (referen ci n g FAR 5 2 .2 1 6 -1 8 ). Th e s am e s ect i o n fu rt h er s t at es th at :

Al l d el i v ery

o rd ers o r t as ko rd ers are s ub jectt o th e t erm s an dco n di t i o n s o f t h i s co n t ract . Inth e ev en t o f co n fl i ct b etw een a d el i veryo rd er o r t as ko rd er an dth is co n t ract , t h e co nt racts h al l co n t ro l

. Id

. Th e fu n ct io n (an di m p o rt an ce) o f t as ko rd ers i s d es cri b edi n an ot h er s ect io n o f t h e co n t ract , wh i ch s t at es in rel ev an tp art :

(a) Th is i s an i nd efi n i t e-q u an t i ty co n t ract fo r t h e s upp l i es o r s erv i ces s p eci fi ed , an deffect i v e fo r th e p eri o d s t at ed , i n th e Sch edu le. Th e qu an t i ti es o f s up pl i es an ds erv i ces s p eci fi edi n the Sch edu l e are es ti m at es o nl y an d are n o t p urch as edb y

th i s co n t ract

. (b ) Del i v ery

o r p erfo rm an ce s h al l b e m ad e o n l y as au t ho ri zedb y

o rd ers i s s u edi n acco rd an ce wi t h t h e

4Ord eri n g cl au s e. Th e Co n t ract o r s h al l fu rn i s h t o th e Go v ern m en t , wh en an di f o rd ered , th e s up pl i es o r s erv i ces s p eci fi ed i n th e Sch edu le up t o an d i ncl u d in g t h e qu an t i t y

d es ig n at edi n th e Sch edu l e as th e
“ m ax i m u m ”. Th e Go v ern m en t s hal l o rd er at l eas tthe quan t i t y o f s up p l i es o r s erv ices d es i g nat edi n th e Sch edu l e as th e “ m i n i m

u m ”.
Co m p l . Ex . 6 at1 1 (referen ci n g FAR 5 2 .2 1 6 -2 2 ).
Th e co n t ract al s o co n t ai ns a d el i v ery s ch edu l e, wh i ch d es cri b es a s eq u en ce o f wo rk rel at edt o p art i cu lar p i l o ts i t es ( e.g
. , “ Pi l otSi t e 1 & 2 ”; “ Pi l o tSi t e 3 & 4 ”). Co m p l . Ex . 6 at3 . Th i s d el i verys ch edu l e i s n o t edb y th e co n t ract t o b e i n acco rd an ce wi t h the Perfo rm an ce W o rkSt at em en t(PW S) “ an d each t as ko rd er.” Id

. Al t h o u g h t h e PW S was n o tat t ach edt o th e co m pl ai n tas a co m

p l et e d o cu m en t , t h e p o rt i o n o f t h e PW S d i scu s s i n g p i l o t s i t es s tat es i n rel ev an tp artth at :

Th e p u rp os e o f [Pi l o tSi t e 1 ] i s t o v al i d at e t h e o perat io n al cap ab il i t y

i n a p ro du ct i o n en vi ro n m en tata s m al l co m

m i s s ary
. Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at3 7 . Inad d i t i o n , th i s s ect io n o f t h e PW S s t at es th at :

Su cces s fu l Pi l o tSi t e t es t i ng an dGo v ern m en taccep t an ce o f th e s erv i ce at the Pi l o tSi t es i s req ui redb efo re g en eral d ep l o ym en t o f th e Co nt ract o r s o l u t i o n
. Id

. It is u n d i s pu t ed t h atth e ag en cy i s s u edfo u rt een t as k o rd ers u n d er t h e co n tract an d t hatth e ag en cy p ai dE&E an am o un t wel l o v er t h e m in i m um am o u n t o f $ 5 00 0 . Iti s al s o u n d is p ut edth atth e co n t ract co n t ai n ed a s t an dard “ Ch an g es ” cl au s e, wh i ch s t at es th at“ [c] han g es i n th e t erm s an dco n d i ti o n s o f t h i s co n t ract m ay b e m ad e o n l y

b y wri t t enag reem en to f t he Part i es
. ” Def.’ s Ap p . at 7 1 2 (referen ci n g FAR 5 2 .2 12 -4 (c)). Fi n al l y , th ere i s n o d is p u te t h atth e co nt ract co n tai n eda t erm i nat i o n fo r co n v en i en ce o f th e g ov ern m en t cl au se, wh ich s t at es :

5Th e Go v ern m en tres erv es th e ri g htt o t erm i nat e t hi s co n t ract , o r an y Part h ereo f, fo r i t s s o l e co n v en i en ce. In t h e ev en to f s u ch t erm i n at i o n , th e Co n t ract o r s h al l i m m ed i at el y s to p al l wo rkh ereu n d er an ds h al l i m m ed i at el y cau s e an y

an dal l o f i ts s up p l i ers an d s ub co n t ract o rs t o ceas e wo rk . Sub jectt o th e t erm s o f t h i s co n t ract , th e Co n tract o r s h al l b e p ai da p ercen t ag e o f t h e co nt ractp ri ce refl ect i n g th e p ercen t ag e o f t h e wo rk p erfo rm edp ri o r t o t h e n o t i ce o f t erm i n at i o n , p l u s reas o n ab l e ch arg es th e Co nt ract o r can d em on s trat e t o th e s at i s fact i o n o f t h e Go v ern m en tu si ng i t s s tan d ardreco rd k eep i n g s y s t em , h av e res u lt edfro m th e t erm i n at i o n
. Th e Co n t ract o r s h al l n o tb e req u i redt o co m p ly wi t h th e co s t acco u n t i n g s t an d ard s o r co n t ract co stp ri nci p l es fo r t hi s p urp o s e. Th i s p arag rap h d o es n o tg i v e t h e Go v ern m en t an y ri g h tt o au d i tth e Co n t ract or’ s reco rd s . Th e Co n t ract o r s h al l n o tb e p ai dfo r an y wo rkp erfo rm edo r co s t s i n cu rred wh i ch reas o n ab l y co u l dh av e b een av o i d ed

. Id

. (referen ci n g FAR 5 2

. 2 1 2 -4 (l )). Th e co n tract was t erm i n at ed p u rs u an tt o th i s cl au s e ap p ro x i m at el y

ei g h t m o n t h s i n t o th e b as e y ear. Co m pl . ¶ 3 3

. I V. Al l eg a ti o ns o f Ba d Fa i th Co nduct by the Ag ency Fact ual al l eg at i o n s o f b adfai t h co n du ctb y th e ag en cy

p erm eat e t h e l en g t h y co m p l ai n t . Iti s n o tn eces s ary t o cat al o g u e each al l eg at i o n t h atal l u d es t o ei t h er b ad fai t h , o r a l ack o f g o o d fai t h an dfai r d eal in g , o n th e p art o f th e g ov ern m en t . It s u ffi ces to n o t e t h atp l ai n t i ff’ s al l eg at i o ns o f b adfai t h ad d res s ag en cy co n du ctat ev ery s t ag e o f t h i s p ro cu rem en t , fro m acq u is it i on p l an n i n g t o cl o s e-o uto f t h e co n tract

. S

ee Co m pl

. ¶¶ 1 5 , 4 9 , 5 2-5 3 , 5 7 , 5 9 -6 0 , 7 2 -1 01 , 1 07 -0 9, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 -1 4 , 1 1 7 -1 8 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 2-3 3 , 1 3 6 , 1 3 9 -4 4 , 1 4 6 -4 8 . Pl ai n t i ff’ s al l eg at i o n s co n demn i n g th e co n du cto f t he g ov ern m en tare fo u ndb o t h i n t h e b ack g ro u n dfact s s ect i on o f t h e co m

p l ai n t , as wel l as i n s o m e o f th e fo u r co u n t s o f th e co m p l ai n t

. Id

. V. Term ina ti on fo r Co nv eni ence o f the Go v ernm ent

6Acco rd i ng t o th e co m p l ai n t , E&E’ s wo rko n th e fi rs t few p i l o t s i tes was s at i s fact o ry

an daccep t edb y

DeCA. Co m

p l . ¶¶ 4 3 , 6 3 -6 7 . No net h el es s , “ [b ] efo re t h e p i l ott es t i n g fu l ly

co n cl u ded , DeCA d eci dedn o tt o p u rs ue d ep lo ym en to f t h e s y s t em , al l eg ed ly

b ecau s e t h e d es i g n eds y s t em d i d n o tm eetDeCA’ s b u s i n es s n eed s.” Id

. ¶ 7 1 . E&E was n o t i fi edth ati t s co nt ract was t erm i nat edfo r t he co n ven i en ce o f th e g ov ern m en to n M arch 1 2 , 2 0 0 9. Id

. Al s o o n M arch 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , b u ts i x h o u rs aft er E&E h adb een n o t i fi ed , th e ag en cy ’ s co n t ract i n g o ffi cer n o t i fi ed t h e SBA t h atth e co nt racth adb een t erm i n at ed

. Id

. ¶ 8 9 , Ex . 3 9 at1

. Th e t erm i n at io n fo r co nv en i en ce n o t i ce was effect i ve i m m ed i at el y
. Co m

p l

. Ex . 3 9 at 3 . E&E was i n s t ru ct edt o ceas e wo rkan d t o n o t i fy i t s s ub co n t ract o rs th at t h e co n t ract was t erm i n at ed

. Id

. Ad d i t i o n al i n s t ru ct i o n s were i n cl u d edas t o th e t ran s fer t o th e ag en cy

o f t i t l e t o co n t ract i n ven t o ri es , as wel l as E&E’ s co n t i n u i n g l i ab i l i t y fo r s et t l em en t s wi t h i t s s ub co n t ract o rs
. Id

. Ex . 3 9 at4 . Am o ng o t her req u i rem en t s , E&E was i n fo rm edo f i t s o bl i g at i o n t o “ [k ] eep ad eq u at e reco rd s
. . . s h o wi n g th e . . . [e] x t en t o f co m p l et i o n o f p erfo rm an ce o n the effect i v e d at e.” Id

. Ex . 3 9 at 3

. VI . Po s t-Term i na ti o n Cl o se-Out Neg o ti a ti o ns On Ap ri l 1 5 , 2 0 0 9, E&E was n o t ifi edth ata t erm i n at i n g co n t ract i n g o ffi cer (TCO) h adb een as s i g n ed t o n eg o t i at e a s et t l em en twi t h E&E fo r i t s t erm i nat i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co st s . Co m pl . ¶ 1 1 9 , Ex . 5 2

. Th es e n eg o ti at i o n s d idn o t g o s m o o t h ly . A n ew TCO was ap p o i n t edo n J an uary6 , 2 01 0

. S ee i d

. ¶¶ 1 2 2 , 1 2 4

. E&E an d t h e n ew TCO co u ldn o tco m e t o a s et tl em en t ag reem en t as t o th e s u m o wedE&E fo r t erm i nat i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s u nd er t h e co n t ract

. Id

. ¶ 1 2 9

. VI I . Certi fi ed Cl a i m On No vem

b er 1 5, 2 0 1 2 , E&E s ub m it t eda cert i fi edcl ai m t o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer fo r t h e ag en cy . Al t h o u gh the cert i fi edcl ai m was n o tat tach edt o th e co m p l ai n t , th e p art i es ag ree t h atth e cert ifi edcl ai m , s up p l em en t edb y s ub s equ en t s ub m i s si o n s t o the co n t ract i n g o ffi cer wh ich cl ari fi edan d co rrect edth e cert i fi ed cl ai m , was at t ach edt o d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n
. S ee Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . Tab s 5 3-5 5 . As d i s cu s s edi n m o re d et ai l b el o w, th e cert i fi edcl ai m co n t ai n edtwo s ep arat e an d d i s t i n ctcl ai m s . Th e fi rs tcl ai m was fo r t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s , i n th e am ou n to f $ 1 ,5 3 4 ,4 9 0.8 6 , a fi g u re wh i ch was l at er red u cedb y E&E t o co rrecta
7$ 2 0 m at h erro r, t o $ 1 ,5 3 4,4 7 0.8 2 . Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at 6 1 5, 7 0 7 . Th e s eco n d

cl ai m was fo r a wro n g fu l , b adfai t h t erm i n at i on o f t h e co n t ract , i n th e am o un to f $ 2 ,2 7 3 ,0 2 2 .7 0

. 5 Id

. at6 16

. Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer d en i edth e s eco n d cl ai m , th e wro n g fu l t erm i nat i o n b reach o f co n t ract cl ai m

fo r $ 2,2 7 3 , 0 2 2.7 0 , i n i t s en ti ret y . Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at 7 2 7 -2 8 . As t o the cl ai m fo r $ 1 ,5 3 4 ,4 7 0 .8 2 i n t erm in at i o n fo r co nv en ien ce s et t l em en tco s t s , th e co n t ract i ng o ffi cer o nl y award ed$ 9 7 ,9 0 0.5 3

. Id

. at7 2 6 . Th e fi nal deci s i o n o f t h e co n t ract in g o ffi cer was d at edM ay 1 6, 2 0 1 3

. Id

. at7 0 8

. VI I I. Pro ceedi ng s befo re the Co urt E&E fi l edi ts fo ur-co u ntco m p l ai n to n M ay

1 5 , 2 0 14 . Each co u n treq u es t s t h e s am e am o u n to f d am ag es : $ 3 ,2 9 6 ,5 4 3 .1 8 . Ato ral arg u m en t , E&E’ s co u n s el ex p lai n edth at t h e i n creas e i n th e am o u n to f E&E’ s cl ai m , fro m No vem b er 2 0 1 2 t o M ay 2 0 1 4 , co u l d l arg el y

b e at t ri b u t edt o co s tfi gu res th atwere rev i s edas m o re d at a was i n cl u d edi n th e cal cu l at i o n s . Oral Arg u m en tTran s cri p t (Tr.) at2 8 -2 9

. Th e l eg al theo ri es rel i edup o n b y p l ai n t i ff, al l s o u nd i n g i n b reach o f co n t ract , are: b reach o f i m

p l iedco v en an t o f g o o d fai t h an dfai r d eal i n g [(Co u n tI)] , b reach o f co n t ract b as edupo n wro n g fu l t erm i n at io n [(Co u n tII)] , i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ract quan tu m m eru it [(Co u n tIII)] an d b reach o f co n t ract ex p res s b reach [o f SBA ad v an ce n o t i ce p ro v i s i on ] [(Co u n tIV)]

. Co m p l . ¶ 1 . Rat h er th an fi l e an an s wer, o n J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 the g o v ern m en tm o v ed t o d i s m i s s th e co m

p l ai n t

.

5 / The court notes that there does not seem to be any prohibition on a contractor presentingto the contracting officer a claim for termination for convenience costs as well as a claim for bad faith termination breach of contract damag es. See, e.g. , T & M Distributors, Inc. v. United States , 185 F .3d 1279, 1280 (F ed. Cir. 1999) (notingin that appeal that the plaintiff “submitted a termination [ f or convenience] settlement proposal and a breach of contract claim alleg ing wrong ful termination”); TigerSwan, Inc. v. United States , 110 F ed. Cl. 336, 342 n.5 (2013) (notingin that case that the plaintiff “submitted a [ termination for convenience] settlement proposal for $92,949.09, reserving its rig ht to bring a contractual claim reg ardingthe . . . [ bad faith] contract termination,” a rig ht it later ex ercised). 8DI SCUSSI ON

I . Sta nda rds o f Rev i ew A. RCFC 1 2 (b)(1 )
In co n s i deri n g the i s s u e o f s ub ject m at t er ju ri s d ict i o n , th i s co urtm u s t p res u m e al l u n di s pu t ed factu al al l eg at i o n s i n t h e co m p l ai n tt o b e t ru e an dco n s t ru e al l reas o nab le i n feren ces i n fav o r o f t h e p l ai n t i ff. S ch eu er v. Rh o des , 4 1 6 U.S. 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 (1 9 7 4), a b r o g a t ed o n o th er gr o u n d s b y Ha r l o w v. Fi t

z g er a ld , 4 57 U.S. 8 0 0 (1 98 2 ); Reyn o lds v. Arm y & Ai r Fo r ce Exch . S

er v. , 8 4 6 F.2 d7 4 6 , 7 47 (Fed

. Ci r. 1 9 88 ). Ho wev er, a p l ai nt iff b ears th e b u rd en o f es t ab l i s h in g s ub jectm at t er ju ri s d i ct i o n , Ald

er Ter r a ce, In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 1 6 1 F.3 d1 37 2 , 1 3 7 7 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ) (ci t i n g McNu t t

v. Gen

. Mo t o r

s Accep t a n ce Co r

p
. o f In d

. , 2 9 8 U.S. 1 7 8 , 1 8 9 (1 9 3 6)), an dm

u std o s o b y

a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce, Reyn old s , 8 46 F.2 dat 7 4 8 (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). If juri sd i ct i o n i s fo u n d t o b e l ack i n g , th i s co u rtm u s t d i s m i s s the act i o n . RCFC 1 2 (h )(3 ).
Th e Tu ck er Actd el i n eat es th i s co urt ’ s juri s d i ct i o n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (2 0 1 2). Th ats t atut e “ co n fers juri s d i ct io n up o n th e Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s o v er t h e s p eci fi edcat eg o ri es o f act i o n s b ro u gh tag ai n s tth e Un i t edSt at es . . . .” Fis h er v. Un i t ed St a t es , 4 0 2 F.3 d1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 5) ( en b an c ) (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). Th es e i ncl u d e m o n et ary cl ai m s ag ai n s tthe fed eral g o v ern m en tfo u n d ed up o n the Co n s t i tu t i o n , an acto f Co n g res s, a reg u l at i o n p ro m u l g at edb y

an ex ecu t i v e d ep art m en t , an ex p res s o r i m p l iedco n t ract wi t h the Un it edSt at es , o r a cl ai m fo r l i qu i dat edo r u n l i qu i d at edd am ag es i n cas es n o t s ou n d i n g i n t o rt

. Id

. (ci t i n g 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (a)(1 )). Th e Tu ck er Actco n cu rren t l y “ wai ves th e Go v ern m en t ’ s s ov erei g n i m m u n i t y fo r t h o s e act i on s .” Id

. Wh en th e g ov ern m en th as ch al l en g edth e t ru t h o f juri s di ct i o n al fact s i n th e co m p l ai n t , th e co u rtm

u stres o l v e t h e d i s p ut e. Reyn o ld s , 8 4 6 F.2 d at7 47 (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). Th e co u rtm ay

i n qui re i n t o ev id en ce o u t s i d e th e p lead i n g s t o es t ab l i s h ju ri s d i ct i o n al fact s
. Id

. ; Ro g er s v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 9 5 Fed . Cl . 5 1 3, 5 1 4-1 5 (2 0 1 0 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). “ In d eed , th e co u rtm ay , an d o ft en m u s t , fi n dfact s o n i t s o wn .” Ma r t i n ezv. Un i t ed St a t es , 4 8 Fed . Cl . 8 5 1 , 8 5 7 (2 0 0 1 ) (ci t i ng RHI Ho ldi n g s , In c. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 1 4 2 F.3 d1 4 5 9 , 1 4 6 1 -6 2 (Fed

. Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ); R o co vi ch v. Un i t ed

9St a t es , 9 3 3 F.2 d 9 9 1 , 9 9 3 (Fed . Ci r. 1 99 1 )), a f f’d i n r el eva n t

p a r t , 2 8 1 F.3 d1 3 7 6 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ).
B. RCFC 1 2 (b)(6 )
It is wel l-s et t l ed t h at a co m p l ai n t s ho u l db e d i s m i s s edu n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 )

“ wh en t he fact s as s ert edb y th e cl ai m an t d o n o t en t i t l e h i m t o a l eg al rem ed y .” Li n d sa y v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 2 9 5 F.3 d1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 7 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ). Wh en co n si d eri n g a m o t i o n t o d is m i ss b ro u g h tu n d er RCFC 1 2(b )(6 ), “ t he al leg at i o n s o f t h e co m pl ai n ts h o u ldb e co n s t ru edfav o rab l y t o t h e p l ead er.” S

ch eu er , 4 1 6 U.S. at 2 3 6 . Th e co u rtm

u stn o tm is t ak e l eg al co n cl us i o n s p res en t edi n a co m p l ai n t , h o wev er, fo r fact u al al l eg at i o n s wh i ch are en ti t l edt o fav o rab l e i n feren ces
. S ee, e.g
. , Pa p a s a n v. Al la i n , 4 7 8 U.S. 2 6 5 , 2 8 6 (1 98 6 ) (“ [W ] e are n o t b o u n d t o accep t as tru e a l eg al co n cl u s i o n co u ch edas a fact u al al l eg at i o n .”) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). If m at t ers o u t s i de t h e p l ead i n g s are co n s i d eredb y th e co u rt , a m o ti o n t o d i sm i s s u n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) m

u stb e co n v ert edt o a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en tu n d er RCFC 5 6 an drev i ewedu n d er t h atru l e. S ee Ad va n ced Ca rdi o va s cu l a r S

ys ., In c. v. S ci med Li f e S ys ., In c. , 9 8 8 F.2 d1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 4 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 3 ) (h o l d i n g t h atth e s t an d ardfo r a m o t i on fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en tap p li es wh en m at t ers o u t s i d e t h e p l ead i n g s are co n s i d ered b y a co u rtd i s p o s i n g o f a Ru l e 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o t i o n ).
Th e co u rt m

u s t al s o i nq u i re wh et h er t h e co m p l ai n tm eet s th e p lau s i b i l i t y s t an d ardd es cri b edb y

th e Un i tedSt at es Sup rem e Co u rt , i.e. , wh et h er i t ad eq u at el y s t at es a cl ai m

an dp ro v i d es a “ s h o wi n g [o f] an y s eto f fact s co ns i s t en t wi t h th e al l eg at i o n s i n th e co m

pl ai n t .” Bel l

At l a n t i c Co r

p . v. Two mb l

y , 5 5 0 U.S. 5 4 4 , 5 6 3 (2 0 0 7) ( Two m b ly ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). “ To s u rv i v e a m o t i o n t o d is m i s s , a co m p l ai n tm u s tco nt ai n s u ffi ci en tfact u al m at t er, accep t edas tru e, t o ‘ s t at e a cl ai m t o rel ief t h ati s p l au si b le o n i t s face.’ ” As h cr o f t v. Iq ba l , 5 5 6 U.S. 6 6 2 , 6 7 8 (2 0 0 9 ) ( Iq b a l ) (q u o t i n g Two mb l

y , 5 50 U.S. at5 7 0 ). Pl au si b i l i t y i s a co n t ex t -s p eci fi c i n qu i ry
. S

ee, e.g
. , Iq b a l , 5 56 U.S. at6 7 9 (“ Det erm i n i n g wh et h er a co m p l ai n t s t at es a p l au s i b l e cl ai m

fo r rel i ef wi l l . . . b e a co n t ex t -s p eci fi c t as k t h atreq u i res t h e rev i ewi n g co u rtt o d raw o n i t s ju d i ci al ex p eri en ce an d co m m o n s en s e.”) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ).
I I . Ana l y s i s A. J uri sdi cti o n
101
. Co unt I I

On e o f t h e p ri n ci p al al l eg at i o n s i n t he co m p l ai n t i s th at p l ai n t i ff i s o wed m o re m o n ey t h an i trecei v edfo r i t s co n t ractb ecau s e th e ag en cy wro n g fu ll y t erm i n at edth e co nt ract i n b ad fai t h . Co m p l . ¶¶ 1 4 6 -4 8

. Th e p art i es ag ree t h atth i s cl ai m , al t h o u g h fo r a m

u ch l ower am o u n t , was p rev i o u s l y s ub m it t edt o the co n tract in g o ffi cer i n a cert i fi edcl ai m , fu l fi l l i ng a p rereq u is i te fo r t hi s co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er cl ai m s b ro u g h tu n d er t h e Co n t ract Di sp u t es Act , 4 1 U.S.C. § § 7 1 0 1 -7 1 0 9 (2 0 1 2) (CDA). Tr. at1 9 , 3 2 -3 3 . Th i s al l eg at i o n o f b adfai t h wro ng fu l t erm i n at i o n i s fo u n di n Co u n tII o f t h e co m p l ai nt , an da l arg el y i n d i s t in g ui s h ab l e cl ai m , ex cep tfo r am o u nt , i s fo u n d i n the cert i fi edcl ai m p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. 6 Co m pa r e Co m

p l

. ¶¶ 1 46 -4 8 , wi th Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at6 1 5-1 6, 6 8 1 -8 4 . Defen d an tco n ced es th atth i s cl ai m i s wi t h i n th e co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n. Tr. at1 9 . Th e co u rts ees n o juri s d i ct io n al i m p ed i m en tt o i t s co n si d erat io n o f t h e cl ai m fo u ndi n Co u n tII o f t h e co m p l ai n t

. 2
. Co unts I , I I I , a nd I V
Th e g o v ern m en tqu es t i o n s , h o wev er, wh et h er p l ai n t i ff’ s rem ai ni n g cl ai m s , wh i ch are fo u n di n t h e o t h er t hree co u n t s o f th e co m p l ai n t , were s ub m i t t edt o th e co n tract in g o ffi cer. 7 Def.’ s M o t . at1 4 -1 5 . Th e co m p l ai n t s u cci nct l y

s u m m ari zes t h e rem ai n i n g co u n t s : Co u n tI (“ b reach o f i m p l i edco v en an to f g o odfai t h an dfai r d eal i ng ”); Co u n tIII (“ i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract quan tu m m eru i t ”); an d , Co un tIV (“ b reach o f co nt ract ex p res s b reach [o f req u i rem en tt o g iv e ad v an ce n o t i ce t o th e SBA o f t erm i n at i o n] ”). Co m p l . ¶ 1 . If t h es e cl ai m s are n o tth e “ s am e cl ai m s ” as t h o s e p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m , th is co u rth as n o ju ri s d i ct i o n u n d er t he CDA t o co ns i der t h em
. See, e.g

. , S co t t Ti mb er Co . v. Un it ed St a t es , 3 3 3 F.3 d 1 3 5 8, 1 36 5 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ An act i o n b ro ug h t b efo re t h e Co u rt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s u n d er t h e CDA m u s tb e ‘ b as edo n th e s am e cl ai m p rev i o u s l y

6 / Neither party

submitted the ex hibits which accompanied the certified claim submitted to the contracting

officer. Approx imately

six ty ex hibits are referenced in the November 2012 certified claim. Def.’s Mot. App. Tab 53. Should the parties continue to dispute the effect of the certified claim on the viability of the claims presented in this suit, the ex hibits attached to the certified claim would be essential for the court’s analy sis of plaintiff’s claims.

7 / All counts in the complaint request the same dollar amount of damag es and are best viewed as alternative leg al theories of entitlement to relief. 11p res en t edt o an dd en i ed b y t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer.’ ” (q uo t in g Cer b er o ni cs , In c. v.

Un i ted St a t es , 1 3 Cl . Ct . 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 (1 9 8 7 ) an dci ti n g 4 1 U.S.C. § 6 0 5 (a) (2 0 0 0 ), n o w co d ifi edat4 1 U.S.C. § 7 1 0 3 (2 0 1 2 ))).

a . Co unt I
Pl ai n t i ff as s ert s i n Co u n tI o f t h e co m pl ai n tth atth e g o v ern m en t h as b reach edth e i m

p li edco v en an to f g o o d fai t h an dfai r d eal i n g as a res u l to f i t s d eal i ng s wi t h E&E rel at edt o th i s co n t ract . Co m p l . ¶¶ 1 3 2 -4 4

. Ho wev er, t h ere i s n o fo rm al cl ai m i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m s ub m it t edt o t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer wh i ch carri es th i s l ab el o r s et s fo rt h th i s as s ert i o n . Th atd o cu m en tp res en t s two cl ai m s , l ab el edAl t ern at i v e I an d A lt ern at i v e II. Al t ern at i v e I rel i es o n th e co n t ract ’ s t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce cl au s e fo r cert ai n cl ai m edco s t s, an dAl t ern at i v e II rel i es o n b reach o f co n t ract t o s up p o rta wro n g fu l , b ad fai th t erm in at i o n cl ai m
. Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at6 1 5 -1 6 , 6 6 0 , 6 7 2 . Th e cert i fi ed cl ai m co n t ai n s n o Al tern at i v e III as s ert in g b reach o f t h e i m pl i edco v en an to f g o o dfai th an dfai r d eal i n g o r, fo r t h atm at t er, an y

o t h er cl ai m
. Lo g i cal ly , o n e m i gh tas s u m e t h atan y cl ai m fo r t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s b reach o f t h e co n t ract ’ s i m

p l i edco v en an to f g o o dfai t h an d fai r d eal in g , i f n o ts ep arat el y d i s cu s s ed , wo u l dh av e b een as so ci at edwi t h an d i n cl u d edwi t h i n th e Al t ern at i v e II cl ai m , n o tth e Al t ern at i v e I cl ai m . A cl ai m at t ack i n g t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s al l eg ed l acko f g o o dfai t h an d fai r d eal i n g , an da wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n cl ai m al l eg i n g b ad fai t h , are o ft entreat edas rel at edi n co n cep t , ev en i f d i s t i n cti n t erm s o f b u rd en s o f p ro o f. S ee, e.g
. , Ti

g er S wa n , In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 1 1 0 Fed . Cl . 3 3 6 , 3 44 -4 7 (2 0 1 3 ) (ex am in i n g th e p l ai n t i ff’ s al l eg at io n s o f b reach o f t h e i m p l i edco v en an tfo r g o o d fai t h an dfai r d eal i ng , as wel l as i t s al l eg at i o n s o f co n tract b reach du e t o wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n , i n i ts an al y si s o f a s i n g l e cl ai m p res en t edb y

th e p l ai n t iff); NCLN2 0, In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 9 9 Fed . Cl . 7 3 4 , 7 5 1 (2 0 1 1) (d es cri b i ng th e p l ai n t i ff’ s fact u al al l eg at i o n s s up p o rt in g cl ai m s rel at edt o wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n an dth e i m p l i ed du t i es o f g o o d fai t h an dfai r d eal i ng as “ o ft en redun d an t ”). In o t h er wo rd s , l acko f g o o dfai t h i s n o tth atd i fferen t fro m b ad fai t h , atl eas t co n cep tu al l y
. S ee, e.g
. , Hu b b a rd v. Un i t ed St a t es , 4 8 0 F.3 d1 3 2 7, 1 3 3 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 7) (n ot i n g th e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i ng o f b adfai t h g o vern m en tco n du ctwh ich s up po rt edth e p lai n t i ff’ s cl ai m fo r b reach o f t h e i m

p l i edco v en an to f g o o dfai th an dfai r d eal i n g ); Au s t i n v. Un i ted St a t es , 1 1 8 Fed . Cl

. 7 7 6 , 7 89 -9 0 (2 0 1 4 ) (d i s m is s in g a cl ai m fo r b reach o f t h e i m p l i edco ven an t o f g o odfai t h an dfai r d eal in g b ecau se t here was n o ev i d en ce
12o f b ad fai t h o n the p arto f t h e g o v ern m en t ). On e m ig h tas s u m e t h ata CDA

p l ai n t i ff wo u l dp u tth es e s i m il ar l eg al th eo ri es , wh i ch s h are m an y o p erat i v e fact s , t o g et h er i n a s i n g le cl ai m , i f o n l y two cl ai m s are p res en t edt o t h e co nt ract i ng o ffi cer. No n et h el es s , E&E i n cl u d edi t s al leg at i on s o f t h e ag en cy ’ s b reach o f t h e i m p l i edco v en an to f g oo dfai t h an dfai r d eal i n g wi t h i n Al tern at i v e I (t h e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s cl ai m ), n o t wi t h i n Al t ern at i v e II (t h e wro n g fu l , b ad fai t h t erm in at i o n cl ai m). S ee Def.’ s M o t . Ap p
. at6 6 4-6 5

. Do es thi s m ean th atthe cl ai m i n Co u n tI was n o tb efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer? Defen d an tm ak es th i s arg u m en t , al th o ug h th e g o vern m en t ’ s an al y s i s i s cu rs o ry
. 8 Def.’ s M ot . at1 4 (ci t i n g Ja mes M. El l et t Co n s tr. Co . v. Un it ed St a t es , 9 3 F.3 d1 5 3 7 , 1 5 4 1 -4 2 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 6 )). Th e ci t ed p o rt i o n o f E l l et t , h o wev er, m erel y d es cri b es th e ju ri s d ict i o n al p rereq ui s i t e t h ata CDA p l ai n t i ff fi rs to b t ai n a co n tract in g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci si o n o n i t s cl ai m b efo re s eek i n g rel i ef i n thi s co u rt : Th u s , fo r t h e co u rtt o h av e ju ri s d ict i o n u n d er t h e CDA, t h ere m u s t b e b o t h a v al i d cl ai m , a t erm the act l eav es u nd efi ned , an d a co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s i o n o n t h atcl ai m
. 9 3 F.3 dat1 5 4 1 -4 2 (ci t at i o n s o m i t ted ).
To ai d i n d et erm i n i n g th i s co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er CDA cl ai m s , th e l ead i n g d eci s i o n s o f t h e Un i t edSt at es Co u rto f Ap p eal s fo r t h e Fed eral Ci rcu i twh i ch co m p are cl ai m s p res en t edt o a co n t ract i n g o ffi cer wi t h cl ai m s p res en ted , i n th e fi rs ti n s t an ce, t o th i s co u rtare S co t t Ti mb er an d Rel i a n ce In s u r a n ce Co . v. Un i t ed St a t es , 9 3 1 F.2 d 8 6 3 (Fed

. Ci r. 1 9 91 ). 9 S ee Ren d a Ma r i ne, In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es ,

8 / Defendant also sug g ests that Count Iis, in truth, a claim founded upon an alleg ed contract implied-in-law. Def.’s Mot. at 13-14. Count I , however, contains numerous factual alleg ations and descriptions of leg al duties which sound in breach of the contract’s implied covenant of g ood faith and fair dealing

. See, e.g. , Compl. ¶¶ 132-33, 136, 139-44. Defendant’s attempt to characteriz e Count Ias a claim outside of this court’s jurisdiction must be rejected.

9 / A recent decision issued by the F e deral Circuit is consistent with the court’s application of relevant precedent in this opinion. S ee K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States , No. 2014-5062, 2015 W L570935, at *2-5 (F ed. Cir. F eb. 12, 2015). B ecause this decision did not chang e ex isting precedent, the court did not rely on defendant’s notice of supplemental authority, 137 1 Fed . Cl . 3 7 8 , 3 9 0-9 2 (2 0 0 6 ) (reco n ci l i ng an y p ercei v ed co n fl i ctb et w een th e s t at em en t s o f t h e l aw i n t h es e t wo p reced en t i al d eci s i o n s ). In Rel i an ce , ju ri s d i ct i o n was d efeat edi n thi s co u rtb ecau s e th e co nt ract o r “ o n l y s ubm i t t edt o t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer cl ai m s fo r eq u i t ab l e ad ju s t m en tt o th e co n t ract [, n o t] a cl ear an d u n eq u i v o cal cl ai m

th at t h e [ag en cy ] b reach edth e co n t ract o r i t s du t y o f g o o d fai t h , ” s uch as t h atp res en t edi n th e co m p l ai ntb efo re t hi s co u rt . 9 3 1 F.2 d at8 6 6 (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). R el i a n ce th u s s t an d s fo r t h e g en eral p ro p o si t io n th ata cl ai m p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer b as edo n a p art i cu l ar l eg al th eo ry can n o t s up p orta cl ai m

i n th i s co urt th ati s b as edo n an en t i rel y d is si m i lar t h eo ry
. S

ee Ren da , 7 1 Fed . Cl . at3 9 1 (“ Ab s en tth e s am e – o r atl eas ta s i m i l ar –u n d erl y i n g l eg al t heo ry

fo r rel i ef s ub m i tt edt o th e [co n t ract i ng o ffi cer] , the co u rti n Rel i a n ce d ecl i nedt o ex t en di t s juri sd i ct io n as i f a ‘ cl ai m ’ fo r b reach o f co n tract o r b reach o f t h e du ty o f g o o dfai t h h adb een rai s edb efo re t h e [co n tract i n g o ffi cer] .”). Rel i a n ce d o es no t , h o wev er, fu l l y

an s wer t h e qu es t i o n t h ati s p o s edh ere: Do es an al l eg at i o n o f b reach o f t h e i m p l i edco v en an tfo r g o odfai t h an dfai r d eal in g , i n cl u d edwi t h i n th e b o d y o f a cl ai m

fo r t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s , s u ffi ce t o creat e ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r a cl ai m fo r b reach o f t h e i m

p l i edco v en an t fo r g oo dfai t h an d fai r d eal i n g i n th i s co u rt ?
S co t t Ti mb er

i s s o m ewh atm o re h el pfu l i n th is ci rcu m s tan ce. Th e Fed eral Ci rcu i tal l o wedfo r s om e v ari an ce b et ween the “ ex actl an g u ag e an ds t ru ctu re” o f t h e cl ai m b efo re t h e co n tract i n g o ffi cer an dth e cl ai m s b efo re t h i s co u rti n i t s ju ri s d i ct i o n al an al y s i s:

[T] h e Un i t ed St at es co n t en d s t h atSco t t h as rai s edn ew cl ai m s i n th i s act i o n t h atwere n o tp rev i o u s l y p res en t ed t o th e CO u n der t h e req u i rem en ts o f th e CDA. Sp eci fi cal l y , th e Un i t edSt at es arg u es th atSco t t ’ s o ri g in al CDA cl ai m s qu es t i o n ed b ro ad l y th e au t h o ri ty

o f t h e Fo res t Serv i ce t o s u s p en dth e . . . co n t ract s an d t h e reas o n ab l en es s o f t h e du rat io n o f th o s e s u s pen s i o n s
. Acco rd i ng t o th e Un i t edSt at es , Sco t tcan n o t rai s e n ew cl ai m s , s u ch as th e cl au s e . . . warran ty i s su e, t h e

filed F e bruary

17, 2015, citing K-Con and presenting additional argument, for its ruling s in this opinion. B riefingof defendant’s motion, including sur-replies, was closed on November 21, 2014 pursuant to the court’s Order of November 10, 2014. 14o bject i o n s t o Fo res tServ i ce’ s p rep arat i o n an d ad m i ni s trat io n o f t h e co n t ract s , an dth e cl ai m s fo r rei m b u rs em en tp ro v i d edu n d er co n t ract t erm s [i n the Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s ] . Th e Un i t ed St at es as s ert s th at t h o se cl ai m s were n o t“ cl earl y an du neq u i v o cal l y ” p res en t ed t o th e CO. S

ee Rel i a n ce In s . Co . v. Un i t ed Sta tes , 9 3 1 F.2 d 8 6 3 , 8 66 (Fed . Ci r. 1 99 1 ).
An act i o n b ro u g h tb efo re t h e Co u rt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s u nd er t h e CDA m

u s tb e “ b as edo n th e s am e cl ai m p rev io us l y

p res en t edt o an dd en i edb y th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer.” Cer b er o n i cs , In c. v. Un it ed St a t es , 1 3 Cl . Ct

. 4 15 , 4 17 (1 9 8 7); 4 1 U.S.C. § 6 05 (a) (2 00 0 ). Th i s s t an dard , h o wev er, d o es n o treq u ire ri [g i ] dad h eren ce t o t h e ex actl an gu ag e o r s t ru ctu re o f t h e o ri g i n al ad m i ni s trat iv e CDA cl ai m . Th e Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s co rrect l y fo u n dth ati th adjuri s d i ct i o n o v er Sco t t ’ s cl ai m s i n th i s cas e, b ecau s e t h ey ari s e fro m

th e s am e o perat iv e fact s , cl ai m es s en t i al ly th e s am e rel i ef, an d m erel y as s ertd i fferi n g l eg al t heo ri es fo r t h at reco v ery
. S ee S co t t I , 4 0 Fed . Cl . at4 99 -5 0 0 ; S co tt III , s l i p o p . at 5 1-5 2 . Th i s co u rt“ kno w[s ] o f n o req u i rem en ti n th e [CDA] th ata ‘ cl ai m ’ m

u s t b e s ub m it t edi n an y p art icu l ar fo rm o r u s e an y

p art i cu l ar wo rd i n g . Al l th ati s req u i red i s th atth e co n tract o r s ub m i ti n wri ti n g t o th e co n t ract in g o ffi cer a cl ear an du n eq u i v o cal s tat em en tth at g i v es th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer ad eq u at e n o t i ce o f t h e b as i s an d am o u n to f the cl ai m .” Co n tr a ct Cl ea n i n g Ma in t ., In c. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 8 1 1 F.2 d5 8 6 , 5 92 (Fed

. Ci r. 1 9 8 7 ). In t h i s cas e, Sco t t g av e t h e CO cl ear n o t ice o f a p u rp o rt ed b reach o f co n t ract b as edo n th e p ro l o n gedan dal l eg ed l y u nau t h o ri zed s us p en s i o n s . M o reo v er Sco t ts o ug h tfro m t h e CO t h e s am e rem ed y

s o u g h t fro m

th e t ri al co u rt , n am el y co n s eq u en t i al d am ag es fo r t h e al l eg edb reach

. Sco t t m ay h av e p o s eds l i g h t l y

d i fferen tl eg al th eo ri es fo r t h e b reach , b utSco t t ’ s cl ai m i s es s en ti al ly th e s am e as p res en t ed t o th e CO. Th u s , Sco tt ’ s cl ai m s i n th is cas e
15wo u ld n o t“ s ub v ertth e s t atu t o ry p u rp o s e o f requ iri n g co n t ract o rs fi rs tt o s ub m i tth ei r cl ai m s t o th e [CO] ” t o al l o w th e CO t o recei v e an dp as s ju d g m en to n t h e co n t ract o r’ s en t ire cl ai m
. Cr o ma n v. Un i t ed St a t es , 4 4 Fed . Cl . 7 9 6, 8 0 1 -0 2 (1 9 9 9 ). Acco rd i n gl y , th i s co u rt affi rm s th e Co urt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s ’ fi n d i n g o f ju ri s di ct i o n
. 3 3 3 F.3 dat1 3 6 5 -6 6 . Wh ere, as h ere, a co nt ract i n g o ffi cer h adn o t i ce o f “ t h e co n tract or’ s en t ire cl ai m ,” S co tt Ti mb er h o l d s th atth e co urts h o ul d n otres ti t s ju ri s d i ct i o n al an al y s i s o n th e fo rm ato f t h e cl ai m s ub m i t t edt o th e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer. Fo r t h i s reas o n , th e co u rtfi n d s th atthe cl ai m i n Co un tI was b efo re t h e co n tract in g o ffi cer, Def.’ s M ot . Ap p . at6 6 4-6 5 , an d t h i s co urt ’ s ju ri s di ct i o n o v er Co u n tI i s es t ab l i s h ed

.

b. Co unt I I I
On e o f t h e cl ai m s i n th e co m p l ai nti s en t i rel y n ew an d u nrel at ed t o an y cl ai m , o r ev en an y

p as s i ng referen ce t o a l eg al th eo ry , i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. Th is cl ai m , fo u n d i n Co u n t III o f t h e co m p l ai n t , al l eg es a b reach o f ani m p li ed -i n-fact co n t ract t o p ay p lai n ti ff fo r “ wo rk p erfo rm edb u tn o t [o rd ered ] i n t h e Tas k Ord ers ” i s s u edu n d er t h is co n t ract

. Co m p l . ¶ 1 5 1 . Pl ai n ti ff s eek s p aym en ti n q ua n t u m mer u it t o co m p en s at e E&E fo r
“ wo rk an d s erv ices [recei ved ] fro m Pl ai n ti ff . . . fo r wh i ch Pl ai n t i ff h as n o tb een co m p en s at ed .” Id

. ¶ 1 5 5. Becau s e th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer was n ev er p res en t ed wi t h a cl ai m b as edup o n an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co nt ract , o r a cl ai m req u es t i n g p aym en t i n q u a nt u m mer ui t

fo r “ un ju s t en ri ch [m en t ] ” o f t h e g o v ern m en t , i d. , th e co u rtl ack s ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h e cl ai m p res en t edi n Co un tIII o f th e co m p l ai nt , as ex p l ai n ed b el o w. Cert ai n l y , u n d er Rel i a nce , a cl ai m b as edo n an i m

p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ract i s t o o d i s s i m i l ar t o E&E’ s cl ai m s b efo re t h e co n t ract in g o ffi cer, wh i ch were b as ed ei t h er up o n s peci fi c co n t ract t erm s o r b reach es o f a fo rm al , ex ecu t edco n tract

. Wh ati s m i s s i n g i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m E&E p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer i s an y al l u s io n t o an i m

pl i ed -i n -fact co n t ract ; thu s , th e co n t ract in g o ffi cer h adn o
“ cl ear an du neq u i v o cal ” s t at em en tfro m E&E thats u ch an i m p li edco n tract h ad b een fo rm ed . 9 31 F.2 d at8 6 6 . Th i s g l ari n g o m i s s i o n , u n d er R el i a nce , d efeat s
16ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r Co u n tIII i n th i s co u rt

.

Ev en u n d er S

co t t Ti mb er , wh ere a cert ai n l at itu d e i n th e ex p res s i o n o f l eg al t h eo ri es was p erm i t t ed , th ere i s n o i n d i cat i on th at t h e Fed eral Ci rcu i t i n t en d edt o em brace a b ro ado p en n es s t o a n y a n d a l l s ub s equ en t l eg al th eo ri es i n t h i s co u rt b as edo n th e s ub m i ss i o n o f o n e i n i t i al cl ai m p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. S ee 3 33 F.3 dat1 3 6 5 (req u i ri n g th atth e cl ai m s s ub m i t t edt o th e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer an d t h is co u rtb e t h e s am e o r o n l y “ s l i g h t ly d ifferen t ” i n l eg al th eo ry , thatth e cl ai m s ari s e fro m

th e s am e o p erat i v e fact s , an d t h atth e cl ai m s s eekes s en t ial l y the s am e rel i ef); Ren d

a , 7 1 Fed . Cl . at3 9 2 (fo l l o wi n g Rel i a n ce an d S co tt Ti mb er t o d i s m i s s a cl ai m

wh i ch was “ su ffi ci en t l y

d i s t i n ct ” fro m

th e o n e b efo re th e co n tract in g o ffi cer t o d efeat CDA juri s d ict i o n i n th is co u rt ). On l y a rad i cal ch an g e i n p reced en t co u l dp erm i t Co u ntIII o f E&E’ s co m pl ai n tt o b e co n s i d ered t o b e t he s am e cl ai m

as an y cl ai m b efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. S co t t Ti m b er d i dn o t , h o wev er, ev en ap p ro ach an o v erru l i n g o f Rel ia n ce an do t h er p ri o r Fed eral Ci rcu i t d eci s i o n s ap p l y i n g th e ru l e s tat ed i n R el i a nce , n o r co u l di t h av e d o ne s o
. 1 0 Geo r g e E. W a r r en Co r p
. v. Un i ted

Sta tes , 3 4 1 F.3 d1 3 48 , 1 3 5 1 -5 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 03 ) (ci t i n g Newel l Co s . v. Ken n ey Mf g
. Co

. , 8 6 4 F.2 d7 57 , 7 6 5 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 8), fo r t h e p ro p os i t i on th at l at er p an el s are b o u n db y earl i er p an el d eci si o n s u n l es s th os e d eci s i o n s are o v erru l ed en b a n c ). Al t h o u gh u n d er S co tt Ti mb er CDA cl ai m s fo u n dedo n “ s l i g h t l y

d ifferen t ” l eg al th eo ri es are n o t n eces sari l y n ew cl ai m s b efo re t h i s co u rt , d is t in ct l y

d i fferen t cl ai m s are an o t h er m at ter.
Co u ntIII, i tm

us t b e n o t ed , as s ert s the b reach o f a co nt ract wh i ch was n o t ev en al l eg edt o h av e ex i s tedi n th e cl ai m s s ubm i t t edt o th e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer. 1 1 A

1 0 / The F ederal Circuit’s most recent decision on this issue confirms that the rule stated in Scott Timber

is not broad enough to permit distinct leg al claims in this court founded on dissimilar leg al claims before the contracting officer. S

ee K-Con , 2015 W L570935, at *3 (statingthat presentinga “materially different factual or leg al theory ( e.g. , breach of contract for not constructinga building on time versus breach of contract for constructing with the wrong materials) [ in this court] does create a different claim [ from the one submitted to the contracting officer] ” (citing Santa Fe Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States , 818 F .2d 856, 858-60 (F ed. Cir. 1987))).

1 1 / In plaintiff’s sur-reply , E& E concedes that it did not use “the leg a l phrase ‘implied-infact contract’” in its certified claim. Pl.’s Sur-Reply at 5. Althoug h the court agrees with plaintiff that E& E’s certified claim, in its numerous factual alleg ations, mig ht theoretically contain an implicit alleg ation that the g overnment benefitted from E& E’s performance of contract work bey

ond the scope of any

task orders issued by

the ag ency , id. , this is not the same 17recen td eci s i o n b y th i s co urtco n du ct edth e an al y si s req u i redb y S co t t Ti mb er an d Rel i an ce an dfo u n dthatwh en a cl ai m req u i res ad d i t i o n al o p erat i v e fact s t o b e res o l vedi n th i s co u rt , i tcan n o tb e co n s id ered t o b e t h e s am e cl ai m as t he cl ai m b efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. S ee Af f i l i a t ed Co n str . Gr

p., In c. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 1 1 5 Fed . Cl . 6 0 7, 6 14 (2 0 1 4 ) (ci t i n g Sco t t Ti mb er , 3 3 3 F.3 dat1 3 6 5 , an dd ecl i n i n g CDA ju ri s di ct i o n o v er a cl ai m “ p red i cat edo n d i fferen to p erat i v e fact s” an d l eg al t h eo ri es d i fferen t fro m

th o s e s up p ort i ng th e cl ai m b efo re t h e co n t ract i ng o ffi cer). In an o th er recen td eci s i o n b y th i s co u rt , th e co u rto p i n ed : Wh en th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e cl ai m [b efo re t h e co n tract i n g o ffi cer] fo cu ses o n o ne t h eo ry o f rel i ef an dd o es n o t al l eg e fact s s u ffi ci en t t o s at i s fy an y o f t h e el em en t s o f t h e t h eo ry

o f rel i ef as s ert edo n ap p eal [i n thi s co u rt ] , i ti s u nl ik el y th atth e ap p eal h as ari s en fro m th e s am e o perat iv e fact s . Su ch i s th e cas e h ere. Si mu l a t i o n Tech ., LLC v. Un i t ed St at es , 1 0 3 Fed . Cl . 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 (2 01 2 ). E&E’ s i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract cl ai m , wh i ch i s a cl ai m fo r p aym en t fo r wo rk b ey o n dth e s co p e o f ag en cy

t as k o rd ers , wo u l dreq u i re t h e ex am i n at i o n o f n u m ero us o p erat i v e fact s t h atare n o treq ui red fo r t h e res o l u t i o n o f an y o f E&E’ s o t h er cl ai m s p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. Fu rt h er, s u ffi ci en tfact s t o s up p o rtfo rm at i o n o f an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ractwere n o tal l eg edi n E&E’ s cert ifi edcl ai m s ub m i t t ed t o the co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. Fo l l o wi n g Rel i an ce an d Sco t t Ti mb er , th e cl ai m i n Co u n tIII o f t h e co m

p l ai nti s b ey o n d t h i s co urt ’ s juri s d ict i o n u n d er t h e CDA.

c. Co unt I V
In Co u n t IV o f t h e co m

p l ai n t , E&E as s ert s th at t h e g o v ern m en t“ d idn o t t erm i n at e t h i s Co n t ract co n s i s t en twi t h t he Co n t ract t erm s p ert i nen tt o Sect i o n 8 (a) award ees .” Co m

p l . ¶ 1 5 7 . Ins up p o rto f wh atp l ai nt i ff al l eg es t o b e a m at eri al an d ex p res s b reach o f t he co n tract , i d

. ¶¶ 1 60 -6 1 , E&E co n t en d s th atth e ag en cy fai l ed t o “ ‘ g i v e ad v an ce n o t i ce t o t h e Sm al l Bu si n es s Ad m i ni s t rat i o n b efo re i ti s s u e[d ] a

as a claim alleg ing that the parties had a meeting of the minds as to an implied contract supplementingthe ex ecuted contract. Thus, the contracting officer was never presented with, and never considered, an implied-in-fact contract claim such as the one contained in Count I I Iof the complaint. 18fi nal no t i ce t erm i n at in g t he ri g h to f E&E, as th e s ub co n t ract or, t o p ro ceed wi t h

fu rt her p erfo rm an ce, ei t h er i n wh o le o r i n p art , u nd er t h e co n t ract ,’ ” i d

. ¶ 1 5 8 (q u o ti n g FAR 5 2.2 1 9 -1 7 as s etfo rth i n th e co n tract ) (al t erat io n i n o ri g in al ); s ee a l s o Co m p l . Ex

. 6 at1 4. Th is fact u al al l eg at i o n i s al s o fo u n d i n the cert i fi edcl ai m p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, Def.’ s M o t . Ap p
. at6 4 6-4 9 , b u tthe ad v an ce n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n i s n ot m en t i on edwi t hi n ei t h er Al t ern at i v e I (t h e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n ven i en ce co s t s cl ai m ) o r Al t ern at i ve II (t h e wro n g fu l , b adfai t h t erm i n at i o n cl ai m), i d

. at6 6 0 -8 4 . If t h e co u rtwere t o cat eg o ri ze t hi s fact u al al l eg at i on (o f an ex p res s b reach o f t he co n tract t erm reg ard i n g ad v an ce n ot i ce t o the SBA o f a co n tract t erm i n at i o n ) wi t h i n t h e co n t ex t o f ei t h er Al t ern at iv e I o r Al t ern at i v e II, i t ap p ears t o b el o n g wi th i n th e b adfai t h wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n cl ai m i n Al t ern at i v e II. S ee i d

. at6 4 7 (al l eg i ng th atth e ag en cy ’ s fai l ure t o co n fo rm wi t h t h e n o t i ce p ro v is i o n s etfo rt h i n th e co n t ractwas “ d el i b erat e an di n t en d ed t o h arm E&E”).
Defen d an tas s ert s thatCo u n t IV o f t h e co m p l ai n t , as s ert in g b reach o f t h e co n tract ’ s n o t i ce p ro v i si o n, was n o tb efo re t h e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer. Def.’ s M o t . at 1 5 . Ag ai n , d efen d an t ’ s co n t en t i o n i n th is reg ardi s co n cl u s o ry
. Th e an al y s i s m an d at edb y Rel i a nce an d S co t t Ti mb er , h owev er, req ui res th atthe co u rtco n s i d er wh et h er es s en t i al l y t h e s am e cl ai m was fi rs tp res en t ed t o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. S ee s u pr a . Inth e co urt ’ s v i ew, Co u n tIV m eet s th i s s tan d ard

. Th ere i s n o s ub s t an t i v e v ari an ce b et ween th e al l eg at i o n s o f b reach o f t h e co n tract ’ s ad van ce n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n s i n th e cert ifi ed cl ai m b efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, an dthe s am e al l eg at i on s i n Co u n tIV i n th e co m p l ai n t . Fu rt h er, al th o u g h Co u n tIV p res en t s a l eg al t h eo ry th atwas n otcl earl y

p res en t edt o t h e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer, i .e. , E&E’ s ri gh tt o reco v er fo r b reach o f a m at eri al t erm o f t h e co n t ract , t h atcl ai m i s s i m i l ar i n n atu re t o t h e b adfai th , wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n co n tract b reach cl ai m p res en t edi n the cert ifi edcl ai m ’ s Al t ern at i v e II; rel i es o n o p erat i v e fact s t h atwo u ld al so b e rel ev an tt o p ro v e b adfai t h co n du cto n th e p arto f t h e ag en cy ; an dreq u es t s t h e s am e t y p e o f rel i ef as d o es th e co n t ract b reach cl ai m i n Al t ern at i v e II. Un d er Rel ia n ce an d S co t t Ti mb er , Co u ntIV co n t ai n s a cl ai m th at was p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer an dth erefo re ju ri s d i ct i o n l i es fo r Co u n t IV o f t h e co m

pl ai n t

. 3
. No Appea l o f the Co ntra cti ng Offi cer’s Fi na l Deci s i o n o n Al terna ti v e I , the Term i na ti o n fo r Co nv eni ence Co s ts Cl a i m

19Fi n al l y , d efen d an t arg u es th atth i s co u rt l ack s ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er an y cl ai m p l ai n t i ff m i g h tas sert wh i ch i s d eri v at i v e o f t he cert i fi edcl ai m ’ s Al tern at i v e I, t h e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s cl ai m t h atwas p art i al l y g ran t edb u tm o s t l y d en iedb y th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer. S ee Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . Tab 5 6 (award i n g $ 9 7 ,9 0 0 .5 3 , i n cl ud i n g i n t eres t , o n a cl ai m fo r $ 1 ,5 3 4 ,4 7 0 .8 2 ). Acco rd i n g t o th e g o v ern m en t , E&E’ s co m

p l ai n t fai l s t o ch al l en g e th e co nt ract i ng o ffi cer’ s ru l i n g o n Al t ern at i v e I, an dth u s an y at t em p tb y p l ai nt i ff t o res u rrect Al tern at i v e I i n s ub s eq u en tp ro ceed i n g s b efo re t h i s co u rtm u s tfai l fo r th e s i m

p l e reas o n t hatth e s t atu to ry d ead l i n e fo r ap p eal i n g t h e d eci s i o n o n Al t ern at i v e I h as n o wp as s ed

. Def.’ s M o t . at7 (ci t i n g 4 1 U.S.C. § 7 1 03 (g )); Def.’ s Rep ly at2 -4 ; Def.’ s Su rRep ly at1 -3 , 5 . Ina rel at edarg u m en t , d efen d an tco n t en d s t hatreco veryu n d er an y o f t h e co u n t s o f t h e co m

p lai n t , t o the d eg ree t h atp l ai n ti ff’ s reco v ery res t s o n cat eg o ri es o f co st s th atwere o r co u l dh av e b een i ncl u d edi n Al t ern at i ve I (a cl ai m t h atwas n o tap p eal ed in th e co m p l ai n t ), i s n o w fo recl o s edb ecau s e t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s ru l i n g o n s u ch co st s i s n o w fi nal . Def.’ s Rep ly at8 -9 ; Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y at1 -5 ; Tr. at6 , 5 5 -5 6 , 5 8

. Th e co u rt ag rees wi t h th e g o v ern m en t ’ s an al y s i s , at l eas ti n p art . Al t h o u g h p l ai n t i ff at t em

p ts t o co n st ru e t h e cert i fi edcl ai m p res en t edt o t h e co n t ract i ng o ffi cer as o n e, u n i fi edcl ai m , Tr. at3 2-3 3 , 5 9 , th at i p s e d i xi t l i t ig at i o n p o s it i o n i s n ei t h er s up p o rt ed b y

th e reco rdn o r ju s t ifi edb y ap pl i cab l e cas el aw. Oni t s face, t h e cert i fi ed cl ai m

co n t ai n s two s ep arat e cl ai m s , s up p o rt edb y fu n d am en t al l y d i fferen t l eg al th eo ri es an d req u es t i n g d i fferen t am ou n t s o f m on ey
. See Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at6 1 5-1 6 (d i s t in g u i s h i n g “ Al t ern at i v e I – Rei m b urs em en tPu rs u an tt o t h e Co m m erci al Term i n at i o n fo r Co n v en ien ce Cl au s e (FAR 5 2 .2 1 2[-4 ] (l )),” req u es t i ng $ 1 ,5 3 4 ,4 9 0 .8 6 , fro m “ Al t ern at i v e II –Dam ag es Ari s in g fro m th e Go v ern m en t ’ s Breach o f Co n t ract ,” req u es t in g $ 2,2 7 3 ,0 2 2.7 0 ). Defen d an t co rrect ly rel i es o n Ca s e, In c. v. Un i t ed St at es , 8 8 F.3 d1 0 0 4 , 1 01 0 -1 1 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 6 ), fo r t h e ru l e t h atd i vi s i bl e p art s o f a cert i fi edcl ai m wh i ch s eekd i fferen t am ou n t s o f m o n ey

are s ep arat e cl ai m s . Def.’ s Rep l y at4 . Un d er Ca s e , Al t ern at i v e I an dAl t ern at i v e II are s ep arat e an dd i v i s ib l e cl ai m s i n E&E’ s cert ifi edcl ai m . Pl ai n t i ff ci t es n o au t ho ri t y t o refu t e t h i s ch aract eri zat i o n o f i t s cert ifi edcl ai m
. Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer t h en ren d ered a d eci s i o n o n each o f t hes e s ep arat e cl ai m s , t o t al l y

d en y i ng Al t ern at i v e II an dg ran t in g l es s th an t enp ercen to f t h e am ou n treq u es t edi n Al t ern at i v e I. Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at7 2 6 -2 8 . Thu s , th e
20u n d i s p u t edd o cu m en ts i n th e reco rds h o w thatth e cert i fi edcl ai m p res en t edt o th e

co n tract in g o ffi cer co n t ai nedtw o cl ai m s , an dth atth e co n t ract in g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n o n Al t ern at i v e I was fi n al o n o r ab o u tM ay 1 6 , 2 0 1 3

. Id

. at7 0 8

. Pl ai n ti ff fi led su i ti n th i s co urto n M ay 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 , b utth e co m

p l ai n tco n tai n s n o co u n to r cl ai m fo u n d edo n E&E’ s ri g ht s u n d er t h e t erm in at io n fo r co n v en i en ce cl au s e o f t h e co n t ract o r FAR 5 2 .2 1 2 -4 (l ).
Si m i l arl y , ev enaft er d efen d an t rai sedth e i s s ue o f p l ai n t i ff’ s fai l ure t o ap p eal th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s i o n o n Al t ern at i v e I, p l ai n t i ff’ s o p p o s i t i o n b ri ef m ad e n o m en ti o n o f a cl ai m b efo re t h i s co u rtfo u n d ed o n th e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce cl au s e o f t h e co n t ract

. Th i s p at t ern co n t i n u edi n p l ai n t i ff’ s s u r-rep ly

b ri ef. Ev en aft er an o s ten s i b l e rev i ew o f d efen d an t ’ s rep l y b ri ef an dd efen d an t ’ s s u r-rep l y b ri ef, wh ere d efen d an t rei t erat edi t s p o s i t i o n th at t h e co m pl ai n tb efo re t h i s co u rti s d ev o i do f a cl ai m fo r t erm in at i o n fo r co n ven i en ce co s t s, p l ai n t i ff’ s s u r-rep l y m ad e n o m en t i o n o f a cl ai m b efo re t h i s co u rtfo u n d ed o n th e t erm i nat i o n fo r co nv en i en ce cl au se o f t he co n tract o r FAR 5 2 .2 1 2 -4 (l ). No tu nt il o ral arg um en td i d p lai n t i ff’ s co un s el at t em p tt o co nv i n ce t h e co u rtth ats u ch a cl ai m co u l db e fo un di n the co m p lai n t. Th i s arg u m en t , n o t rai s edu n t i l o ral arg u m en t, i s n o tp ro p erl y b efo re th e co u rt

. S

ee A r a ka ki v. Un i t ed St a t es , 6 2 Fed . Cl . 2 4 4 , 2 46 n
. 9 (2 0 0 4 ) (“ Th e co u rt wi ll n otco n s id er arg um en t s t h atwere p res en t edfo r t h e fi rs tt i m e i n a rep ly b ri ef o r aft er b ri efi n g was co m p l et e.” (ci t i n g No vo s t eel

S A v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 2 8 4 F.3 d1 2 6 1 , 1 2 7 4 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ); Cu b i c Def

. S ys ., In c. v. Un i t ed St at es , 4 5 Fed . Cl

. 4 5 0 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 9 ))).
Ev en i f p l ai n t iff’ s arg u m en t were p ro p erl y b efo re t h e co urt , i t wo u l db e u n av ai l i n g . Ato ral arg u m en t , th e co u rtas k edp l ai n t iff’ s co u n s el t o i d en t i fy th e l an g u ag e i n the co m

p l ai n t wh i ch ap p eal ed t h e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer’ s d eci si on o n Al t ern at i v e I, t h e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en ien ce co s t s cl ai m
. Tr. at3 3 -3 8 . Am o n g a v ari et y o f res p o n s es t o th i s qu es t i o n , p lai n t i ff’ s co u n s el i n d icat edth ats u ch a cl ai m m i g h tb e fo u n d“ o v er t h e fo u r co un t s ,” o r m i g h tb e fo u n di n th e o v eral l am o u n t req u es t edi n d am ag es fo r t h i s s u i t. Id

. at 3 3 -3 4

. Wh en th e co u rti n qui redwh ere, s p eci fi cal l y , wi t h i n the o n e h u n d reds i x t y o n e p arag rap h s o f t h e co m p l ai nta cl ai m

fo r t erm i n at io n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s b ey o n d t ho s e award edco ul db e fo u n d , p l ai n ti ff’ s co u ns el res p o n d edth at t h e co u rt s h o u ldl o o katth e fact ual al l eg at i o n s reg ard i ng th e t erm i n at i o n o f t he co n tract b eg in n i n g wi t h p arag rap h o n e h u n d redtwo an dco n t i n u i n g t h ro u gh p arag rap h o n e
21h u n d redth i rt y
. Tr. at3 7 . Co u n s el al s o n o t ed t h atp arag rap h o n e h u n d redtwen t y s ev en ad d res s edt erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s th ath adal read y b een p ai dt o E&E b y th e ag en cy
. Id

. at3 8.
Th e co u rt n o t ed , an dp l ai n t i ff’ s co un s el co n ced ed , th atwi t h i n thatci t ed p arag rap h n o “ cl ai m

. . . fo r ad d i t i o n al t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce co s t s ” co u l db e i d en t i fi ed

. Id

. Th e co urt h as du l y ex am in edth e en t ire co m p lai n t . Th ere i s n o i n d i cat i o n t h at E&E ap p eal edth e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n as t o t h e am o u n t o wedt o p l ai n ti ff u n d er th e co n t ract ’ s t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en i en ce cl au s e. In s t ead , t h ere i s a s eri es o f al l eg at i o ns o f co nt ract b reach , wi t h acco m p an y i n g l eg al t h eo ri es , an d an u n ex p lai n ed req u es tfo r $ 3 ,2 96 ,5 4 3 .1 8, t he am o u nto f d am ag es req u es t edfo r each o f t h e fo u r co u n t s i n th e co m p l ai n t . Th e co u rtco n cl ud es th at t h ere i s n o ap p eal o f t he co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s io n o n t h e cert i fi edcl ai m ’ s Al t ern at i v e I, t h e t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en ien ce co s t s cl ai m , wi th i n t h e co m pl ai n t

. Th e co u rt d ecl in es t o d eci d e, at t hi s p o i n t , wh et h er an y o f t h e d am ag es as s ert ed b y

p l ai n t i ff i n th i s s u i t are u n av ai l ab l e b as edup o n th e fi n al i t y o f t h e co n tract in g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n o n t erm i n at i o n fo r co n v en ien ce co s t s . Fi rs t , p l ai n t i ff h as th u s far o n l y

o ffered b ro ads t ro k e ex p l an at i o n s as t o i t s cl ai m edb reach d am ag es an d t h ei r p ro per cat eg o ri zat i o n . Seco n d , al t h o u g h cert ai n t y p es o f d am ag es m i g h t p ro p erl y

b e t he fo cu s o f ch al l en g es b ro u g h tu n der RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) o r RCFC 5 6 , thi s co u rt ’ s juri s d i ct i o n o v er Co u n t s I, II an d IV d o es n o td ep en d up o n an y s p eci fi c cl as s i fi cat i o n o r ap p ort i o n m en to f t h e d am ag es as s oci at edwi t h each o f t h es e co un t s i n the co m p l ai n t

. 4
. Sum m a ry o f J uri s di cti o na l Rul i ng s Th e co u rt fi n d s th ati th as juri s d ict i o n t o co n s i d er Co u n t s I, II an dIV o f t h e co m p l ai n t . Th e i m

pl i ed -i n -fact co n t ract cl ai m i n Co u n tIII, h o w ev er, was n o t s ub m i t t edt o t h e co n t ract in g o ffi cer an dm u s tb e d is m i ss edfo r l acko f s ub j ect m at t er ju ri sd i ct i on . Fu rt h er, t o th e ex t en t t h at t he cl ai m s fo un d i n Co un t s I an dIV m u stb e cat eg o ri zedas al i g ni n g wi t h ei t h er Al t ern at iv e I o r Al t ern at i v e II i n th e cert ifi edcl ai m

p res en t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, b o t h o f t h es e cl ai m s are, b y t h ei r n atu re, co n t ract b reach cl ai m s b as edatl eas ti n p art o n al l eg at i o n s o f b adfai t h co n du ct , an d are m o re cl o s el y co n n ect edt o Al t ern at iv e II (t h e wro n g fu l , b adfai t h t erm i n at i o n cl ai m ), t han t o Al t ern at i v e I (t h e t erm in at i o n fo r co nv en ien ce co s t s cl ai m). Fi n al l y , th ere i s n o cl ai m fo r t erm i n at i o n fo r co n ven i en ce co s t s i n th e
22co m

p l ai n t– th us , p u rs uan tt o 4 1 U.S.C. § 7 1 0 3 (g ), t he co u rtl ack s juri s di ct i o n fo r an y s u ch cl ai m

i n thi s l i t i g at io n. Th e co u rtn ow tu rn s t o d efen d an t ’ s ch al l en g e t o t h e t h ree rem ai n i n g co u n t s o f t h e co m p l ai ntu n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ). 1 2
B. The Go v ernm ent’s RCFC 1 2(b)(6 ) Cha ll eng es to the Co m pl a i nt
1
. Co unts I a nd I I
Defen d an trai s es s ev eral RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) ch al l en ges t o Co u n ts I an dII, al t h o u g h t h es e arg u m en t s are p res en t ed i n a cu rs ory m an ner. 1 3 Fi rs t , the g o v ern m en tas s ert s t h at t h e i den t i fi cat i o n o f d am ag es i n the co m p l ai n t i s i n s u ffi ci en t l y

cl ear, ren d eri n g p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s i m p lau s i b l e. Seco n d , th e g o v ern m en tas s ert s t h at t h e fo rm u l a u s edt o cal cu l at e t he d am ag es fo r wro n g fu l t erm i n at i o n i n t h e cert i fi edcl ai m b efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, an d , p res u m ab l y , t h e s am e d am ag es fo rm

u l a al l eg ed t o s up p o rtth e cl ai m s i n Co u n t I an di n Co u n tII h ere, can n o ts up p ort a v al i dCDA cl ai m . Th i rd , th e g ov ern m en t arg u es th atev en i f Co u n tI co ul db e read t o s t at e a cl ai m rel y i n g o n a co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g e t o th e co n tract , E&E h as fai l edt o cl earl y an dm ean i n g fu l l y

p l eadth e el em en t s o f s u ch a cl ai m . Fo u rt h, t he g o v ern m en targ u es th at t he co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s d i s cret i o n i n t h i s ty p e o f co n tract i ng v eh i cl e i s s o g reat th atn o al leg at i o n o f ab u s e o f d i s cret i on co u lds up p o rtreco v ery

u n d er ei t h er Co un tI o r Co un tII. Th e co u rtad d res ses each

1 2 / The g overnment challeng ed all four counts of the complaint pursuant to RCF C 12(b)(6). B ecause the court lacks jurisdiction over Count II I , the court need not address, at any leng th, the question of whether Count I I Ialso fails to state a claim upon which relief may be g ranted. The court does ag ree, however, with defendant’s arg uments and citations to caselaw which indicate that plaintiff’s claim founded on the ex istence of an implied-in-fact contract covering the same subject as its express, ex ecuted contract is implausible. See, e.g. , Atlas Corp. v. United States , 895 F .2d 745, 754-55 (F ed. Cir. 1990) (“The ex istence of an express contract precludes the ex istence of an implied contract dealing with the same subject, unless the implied contract is entirely

unrelated to the express contract.” (citing ITT Fed. Support Servs. v. United States , 531 F .2d 522, 528 n.12 (Ct. Cl. 1976))). Plaintiff did not rebut these arg uments or present conflictingauthority , because its briefs do not address Count II I in terms of RCF C 12(b)(6). Thus, even if the court possessed jurisdiction over Count II Iof the complaint, it would necessarily

be dismissed for failure to state a claim under RCF C 12(b)(6).

1 3 / The court observes that its consideration of defendant’s RCF C 12(b)(6) arg uments does not rely

on any of the ex hibits attached to the parties’ briefs. SeeRCF C 12(d).

23o f t h es e co nt en t i o n s i n tu rn
. 1 4

a . Pl ea di ng Requi rem ent fo r Da m a g es Defen d an tat tem

p t s t o es t ab l i s h a p l ead in g s t an d ardfo r a p l au s i b le i d en t i fi cat i o n o f t h e d am ag es s o u g h ti n a CDA cl ai m
. S ee Def.’ s M o t

. at1 9 -2 0 ; Def.’ s Rep l y

at7 -8 ; Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y at5 ; Tr. at4 , 1 7 , 2 0. Th e co u rti s n o t p ers u ad edth at d efen d an t ’ s p ro p o s eds t an d ardi s s up p o rt edb y th e ci t edau t h o ri t i es
. Fi rs t , FAR 2 .1 0 1 , Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y at5 , d o es n o tap p ear t o req u i re t h ata CDA cl ai m co n t ai n an y

fu rth er p reci s i o n reg ard i n g d am ag es o t h er t han a s t at em en to f a s u m cert ai n o wed t o th e co n t ract o r: Cl a i m m ean s a wri t t en d em an do r wri tt en as s ert io n b y o ne o f t he co n tract i n g p art i es s eek i n g , as a m at t er o f ri g h t, th e p aym en to f m o n ey i n a s um cert ai n , th e ad ju st m en t o r i n t erp ret at io n o f co n t ract t erm s , o r o t her rel i ef ari s i n g u n d er o r rel at i n g t o th e co n tract

. FAR 2 .1 0 1 . Th e co m

p l ai nth ere m eet s th i s s t an d ard

. Seco n d , Bo

ya j ia n v. Un i t ed

St a tes , 4 2 3 F.2 d1 23 1 (Ct . Cl

. 1 97 0 ), t h e cas e rep eat ed l y

ci t ed b y d efen d an t fo r i t s p ro po s edp l ead i n g s t an d ard , s ee Def.’ s M o t

. at1 8 -1 9 , 2 4 ; Def.’ s Rep ly at7 ; Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y

at5 ; Tr. at1 7 , i s a p os t -t ri al o p i n i o n , n o tan o p i n i o n res o l vi n g a m o t i o n t o d i sm i s s fo r fai l u re t o s t at e a cl ai m up o n wh i ch rel i ef m ay

b e g ran t ed

. S

ee Bo ya j i a n , 4 2 3 F.2 dat1 2 3 2 (s t at i n g th at

“ t ri al p ro ceed i n g s were co n du ct edwi t h res p ectt o th e rem ai n i n g fi v e [cl ai m s ] ” an d p ro ceed in g t o ex am i n e wh et h er t h e p l ai n ti ff h adp ro ved t h o s e cl ai m s). Th u s , th e p ro n ou n cem en t s o f t h e Co u rto f Cl ai m s i n Bo ya j i an reg ard i n g t h e d am ag es co m p o n en to f a CDA cl ai m

ad d res s th e b u rd eno f p ro v i n g th o s e d am ag es
. Bo ya j i a n can n otb e read t o i m p o s e a p l ead i n g s tan d ardfo r a p l au s i b l e d es cri p t i o n

1 4 / Defendant’s reliance on the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in its motion to dismiss weakened by

the time the parties presented oral arg ument. SeeTr. at 6 (arg

ument from g overnment counsel stating that “it’s not a question of accord and satisfaction, althoug h I mentioned that in some of my papers, it’s a question of statutory bar”). Judg ingthe sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims by

the fair inferences afforded assertions in the complaint and by the content of the documents attached thereto, plaintiff’s claims survive any challeng e brought under RCF C 12(b)(6) which relies on the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 24o f CDA d am ag es i n a co m p l ai nt , b ecau se t hi s t o p i c i s n o wh ere ad d res s edi n th at o p i n i o n . Th e co u rt fi n d s Bo ya j i a n t o b e i n ap p o s i t e t o th e i n qu i ry req u i redb y RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ).
Th i rd , the n o n -CDA cas es rel i edup o n b y d efen dan td o n o ts up p o rtth e p ro p os edp l ead i n g s t an d ard . Defen d an t ’ s g en eral ci t at i o ns t o cas es s et t i n g fo rt h t h e Ru l e 1 2 (b )(6 ) s t an d ardu nd er Two mb l yan d Iq b a l s hedn o l ig h to n d efen d an t ’ s p ro p os edreq u i rem en t t h atd am ag es i n a CDA cl ai m b e s p eci fi ed b ey on d t he i d en t i fi cat i o n o f a s u m

cert ai n
. S

ee Def.’ s M o t . at2 0 ; Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y at5 . As n o t edb y t h e Sup rem e Co u rt , p l au s i b i l i t y i s a co nt ex t -s p eci fi c i nq u iry

. Iq b a l , 5 5 6 U.S. at6 7 9 . No n -CDA cas es d o n o tm ean i n gfu l l y ad d res s th e s uffi ci en cy

o f t h e d am ag es p l edi n CDA cl ai m s
. Fo u rt h , th e cas es ci t ed b y d efen d an t d i s cu s si ng co n t ract o r cl ai m s an d d am ag es , s ee Def.’ s Rep l y at7 -8 , are i nap p o s it e. In W i l l ems In d u s tr i es , In c. v. Un i ted St a t es , 2 9 5 F.2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 7 , 8 3 2 (Ct . Cl . 1 9 6 1 ), t he Co u rto f Cl ai m s l o o k ed at“ t h e ev i d en ce i n th e reco rd ” t o d i s co ver wh et h er each p art y h add i s ch arg ed“ i t s b u rd eno f p ro vi ng th e facto f l o s s ” fo r i t s cl ai m o r co u n t ercl ai m
. W

il l ems th erefo re s up p li es i n s i g h tas to th e b u rd en o f p ro o f fo r CDA cl ai m s, n ota p l ead i n g s t an d ard

. An o t h er d eci s i o n ci t ed b y d efen d an t , Lis bo n Co n tr a ct o rs , In c. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 8 2 8 F.2 d7 5 9 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 87 ), i s , l i k e Bo ya j i a n , a cas e d es cri b i ng p o s t -t ri al b u rd en s o f p ro o f. Fi nal l y , Pr o p el l ex Co r

p
. v. Br o wn l ee , 3 4 2 F.3 d1 3 35 , 1 3 3 8 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ), s i m i larl y d i s cu s s es b u rd en s o f p ro o f i n a p o s t -h eari n g s et t i n g
. No n e o f t h es e cas es es t ab l i s h es a p l ead i ng s t an dard th ati s rel ev an tt o th e g o v ern m en t ’ s RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o t i o n
. Th e co u rt co n cl u d es thatd efen d an t h as fai l edt o m u s t er ad equ at e au t h o ri t y fo r i t s p ro p o s ed p l ead i n g s t an d ardfo r t he d am ag es co m p o n en to f CDA cl ai m s
. Th e co u n t s o f t h e co m

p lai n th av e n o tb een s h o wn t o b e i m p erm i s s i b ly

v ag u e reg ard i n g th e m o n et ary

rel i ef s o u g h t. No r can th e co u rtco n cl ud e, rel y i n g o n l y o n t h e co m pl ai n tan dthe d ocu m en t s at t ach edth eret o , th atth e s u m s o u gh ti n ei t h er Co u n tI o r Co u n tII i s n o tp lau s i b l e. Th e co u rtn o w tu rn s t o an o th er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) arg um en trai s edb y th e g o v ern m en t

. b. Percenta g e o f Co ntra ct Va l ue Da m a g es Cl a i m Referri n g b ackt o the No v em ber 2 01 2 cert i fi edcl ai m b efo re th e co n t ract i n g
25o ffi cer, d efen d an t arg u es th atan y cl ai m i n th e co m

p l ai n t b as edo n Al t ern at i v e II (t he wro n g fu l , b adfai t h t erm in at i on cl ai m ) wo u l dl i k ewi s e co n t ai n a d am ag es fo rm u l a t h atreq u es t s s i x t y -s ev en p ercen to f t h e m ax i m u m p o s s ib l e co n t ract am ou n t . Def.’ s M o t . at2 0-2 1; Def.’ s Rep ly at8 -9 ; Def.’ s Su r-Rep l y

at 2 -5 ; Tr. at 5 6 -5 8. Defen d an targ u es th ats u ch a d am ag es fo rm u l a i s s pecu l at i v e an d n o t g ro u nd edi n i n cu rred co s t s , an d t h ats u ch a fo rm u l a can no tp ro v i d e fo r a co n tract or’ s reco v ery

o n a CDA cl ai m . Inth i s cas e, h o wev er, th e co u rtn eedn o t co n si d er wh eth er a co nt ract o r m ay reco v er o n s u ch a d am ag es fo rm u l a, b ecau s e i t i s n o tev i d en tth atthe d am ag es req u es t edfo r Co u n tI an dCo u n tII are b as edo n s u ch a fo rm

u l a. Th ere i s n o m en t io n o f a d am ag es fo rm u l a i n th e co m

p l ai n t . Inp l ai n t i ff’ s s u r-rep l y , E&E as s ert s that“ Defen d an t ’ s u ns upp o rt edp res u m p t io n th at‘ i ti s reas on ab l e t o as su m e t h at . . . th e d am ag es i n th e co m p l ai nt were n o t

b as edup o n an y i n cu rred co s t ’ i s s p ecu l at i ve an di n co rrect .” Pl .’ s Su r-Rep l y at7 (ci t i n g Def.’ s Rep ly at8 ). Ato ral arg u m en t , al t h o u g h p lai n ti ff’ s co u n s el was n o t al t o g et h er cl ear o n th is p o i n t, i t ap p ears thatat l eas t s o m e o f t he d am ag es cl ai m edi n th e co m p l ai n tm ay

b e fo r i n cu rred co s t s . Tr. at2 8-3 5 . Fu rt h er, p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el d i d n o tco nced e t h ata d am ag es fo rm u la h adb een u s edt o d eri v e t h e s u m cert ai n s et fo rt h i n each o f t h e cl ai m s i n t h e co m p l ai nt

. Affo rd i ng al l reas o nab l e i n feren ces t o th e co m p l ai n t , th e co u rtcan no t co n cl u d e th atCo u n t I o r Co u n tII s h o u l db e d is m i s s edb ecau s e t hes e cl ai m s n eces s ari l y

rel y o n a s pecu l at i ve d am ag es fo rm u l a. Th e co u rtn o t es , t oo , th ati n arg u i n g th i s i s s u e t h e p art i es h av e rel i edo n m at eri al s o u ts i de t h e p l ead i n g s
. S ee, e.g
. , Def.’ s M o t . at2 0-2 1 (ci t i n g Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . at6 8 4 ); Pl .’ s Su r-Rep l y at6 (ci t i n g Pl .’ s Op p . Ex . 1 at7 4 ). It i s n o tp ro per t o rel y o n s u ch m at eri al s t o d eci d e a m o ti o n b ro u gh tu n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ), wi t h ou tfi rs t co n v ert i n g the m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t o a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t. S

ee RCFC 1 2(d ). Th e co u rt d o es n o t h av e b efo re i ts ub s t an t i v e arg u m en tb as edo n th e s u m m ary ju d g m en ts t an d ard ; t h u s , m at eri al s o u t s i d e t h e p lead i n g s are n o t ap p ro p ri at el y co ns i d ered atth is t i m e. Co u n tI an d Co u n tII t h erefo re s u rv i v e d efen d an t ’ s RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) ch al l en g e fo u n dedo n th e p res u m

p t i o n th atp l ai n ti ff u s eda s p ecu l at iv e d am ag es fo rm u l a i n t h e co m pl ai n t

.

c. Co ns tructi v e Cha ng e Cl a im Pl ea di ng Requi rem ents

26Defen d an targ u es th at“ [c] ert ai n p o rt i o n s o f Co u n tOn e m i g h t b e co n s t ru ed

as al l eg at i o n s rel at edt o a co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m .” Def.’ s M o t. at1 8 (ci t i n g Co m p l . ¶¶ 5 7 , 1 36 , 1 4 2 ). Th e co u rtag rees wi th d efen d an t t h atthes e al leg at i o n s i n t h e co m pl ai n tare n o tu n l i k e t h e al l eg at i on s u s edt o s up p o rt an equ i tab l e ad ju s t m en tcl ai m fo r co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g es t o a co n t ract . Defen dan tg oes fu rt h er, h o wev er, an darg u es th atb ecau s e “ E&E h as fai l edt o p leadal l el em en ts o f i t s co n st ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m i n a m ean i ng fu l way , . . . th e cl ai m [i n Co un tI] s h o u l d b e d i s m is s ed fo r fai l u re t o s t at e a cl ai m upo n wh i ch rel i ef m ay

b e g ran t ed .” Id

. Th e co u rtcan n o tag ree. Fi rs t , p l ai nt i ff h as cl earl y p l eda b reach o f co n t ract cl ai m i n Co u n tI t h at al l eg es a b reach b y

the g o vern m en to f t h e i m p li edco v en an to f g o o dfai th an dfai r d eal i ng i n i t s d eal i n g s wi th E&E rel at ed t o t h i s co nt ract . Oni t s face, Co u n tI i s n o ta cl ai m

fo r co ns t ru ct i v e ch an g e o f t h e co n t ract req u i rem en t s
. Fu rth er, i ti s n o t cl ear t o th e co u rtth atth e t ru e n atu re o f Co u n tI i s t h ato f a cl ai m fo r co n s t ru ct i v e ch an ges t o th e co n t ract

. W i t h i n Co u n tI i s an al l eg at i o n th atth e ag en cy “ i n t erfer[ed ] wi t h E&E’ s ab i l i t y t o p ro v i d e th e tu rn k ey

s o l u t i o n req u i redu nd er t h e Co n t ract an di t s reas on ab l e ex p ect at i on s as t o co m p en sat i o n an dg o o d w i ll em an at in g t h erefro m .” Co m p l . ¶ 1 3 2 . An ot her al l eg at i o n s t at es th atth e ag en cy “ d i dn o ti s s u e [co n t ract l i ne i t em n u m

b ers ] p urs u an tt o th e ag reed -up o n d el iv ery s eq uen ce.” Id

. ¶ 1 3 3

. Yetan o t her al l eg at io n s t at es th at“ m ai n t en an ce was o rd ered b efo re t here was an yt h i n g i n p l ace t o m ai nt ai n .” Id

. ¶1 3 7 . Th e g o v ern m en ti s al s o accu s edo f a

“ l acko f d i l i g en ce i n i s s ui ng n eces s ary t as ko rd ers ,” o f “ fai l [i n g ] t o co op erat e wi t h Pl ai n t i ff,” an do f “ n o t fu l l y d i s cl o s i n g p ri o r co n tract acq u i s it i o n h i s t o ry .” Id

. ¶¶ 1 3 9 -4 1 . Th es e al l eg at i o ns are n o tn eces s ari l y res t ri ct edt o a co n s t ru ct i v e ch an ge cl ai m , an d co u l d p o t en t i al l y s upp o rt a b reach cl ai m

fo un d edo n th e i m

p l i ed co v en an to f g oo d fai t h an dfai r d eal i n g
. Th u s , th e co urti s n o tco n v i n cedth atCo un tI s h o ul db e h el dt o a p l ead i n g s t an d ardwh ich requi res th atal l o f t h e el em en t s o f a co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m b e p l edi n th e co m

p l ai nti n o rd er t o av o i d d i s m i s s al . Fu rt h er, as th e co u rtn o t ed s u p r a , th ere i s a l o g i cal co n n ect i o n b et ween the fact s req u iredt o p ro v e a b reach o f t h e i m p l i edco ven an t o f g o odfai t h an dfai r d eal in g, an d t h e fact s req u i redt o s up p orta wro n g fu l , b adfai th t erm i nat i o n o f a g o vern m en t co n t ract . To th e ex t en t t h atth e al l eg at i o n s an ds p eci fi c cl ai m s i n Co un t I an dCo u n tII are m erel y facet s o f

27t h e s am e o v eral l cl ai m fo r d am ag es rel at edt o a wro n gfu l t erm in at i o n , Co u n tI s h o u ldn o tb e d i s m i s s edm erel y b ecau s e i tp o s si b l y

co n t ai n s an i m

p erfect l y p l ed co n st ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m . Fo r t h es e reas o n s , d efen d an t ’ s RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) ch al l en g e t o Co u n t I o n th e g ro u n d s th atp lai n t i ff fai l edt o ad eq u at el y p l eada co n st ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m m us tb e reject ed

. d. Cl a i m fo r Brea ch o f the Duty o f Go o d Fa i th a nd Fa i r Dea l ing I s No t Fo recl o s ed by the Na ture o f the Co ntra ct o r by the Ag ency ’s Bro a d Di s creti o n Fi n al l y , d efen d an t arg u es Co u n tI s h o ul db e d i sm i s s edb ecau s e a “ p art y can n otb reach th e i m

p li eddu t y

o f g o o dfai t h an d fai r d eal in g b y t ak i n g act i o n s p erm i t t edb y

th e co n t ract .” Def.’ s M o t . at1 6 (ci t at io ns o m i t ted ). To g iv e a s p eci fi c ex am

p l e o f t h is p rem i se, t h e g o v ern m en tco n t en d s that“ [i ] n th i s cas e, t h e co n tract p erm i t t edth e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer t o i s s u e t h es e 1 4 t as k o rd ers , an d p erm i t t edth e co n tract i n g o ffi cer t o i s s u e on l yth es e 1 4 t as ko rd ers .” Id

. (em p h as i s ad d ed ). Fu rt her, d efen d an tn o t es th atth e ag en cy i s p erm it t edt o as s i g n a s i gn i fi can tam o un to f ri s kt o t h e co n t ract o r. S ee i d

. at1 7-1 8 (n o t i ng th at co n tract in g o ffi cers h av e co n s id erab l e d is cret i o n i n s t ru ctu ri n g co n t ract s , an d ci t i n g n u m ero u s au t h o ri t i es fo r th i s p ro po s it i on ). Th e co urtcan n o t ag ree wi t h d efen d an tth atthe co nt ract v eh i cl e ch o s en h ere b y th e ag en cy , o r i t s d i s cret i o n i n as s i g n i n g ri s k t o co n t ract o rs , g u aran t eedth at n o cl ai m fo r b reach o f t h e i m

p l i ed du t y o f g o o dfai th an d fai r d eal i n g co u l dp o s s i b l y s u cceed i n th i s co u rt

. Th e co n t ract ati s s u e i n th i s s u i ti s an IDIQ co nt ract . Th e co u rti s aware o f atl eas t o n e b reach cl ai m

fo u n d edo n th e i m

p l i eddu t y o f g o o dfai th an dfai r d eal i ng wh i ch s u rv i v eda m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b ro ug h t u n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ), ev en t h o u g h th e co n t ract i n qu es t i o n i n t h atcas e was an IDIQ co n tract

. D i gi t al Tech s ., In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 8 9 Fed . Cl . 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 , 7 3 5 (2 00 9 ). Fu rt h er, n o fu n d am en t al i n co m pat i b i l i t y b et ween a b reach cl ai m

fo u n d edo n th e i m

p l i eddu t y

o f g o o dfai t h an d fai r d eal i n g an dan IDIQ co n t ract can b e d is cern edi n th e cas es ci t edb y d efen d an t

. In o n e o f t h e cas es ci t edi n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n , th e Fed eral Ci rcu i t s t at es th at a l l

ty p es o f co nt ract s i n cl u d e t h e i m p li eddu t y

o f g o o dfai t h an dfai r d eal i ng :

28Im p l i ed i n ev ery

co n t ract i s a du t y

o f g o odfai t h an d fai r d eal i n g th atreq ui res a p art y t o refrai n fro m

i n t erferi n g wi t h an o t h er p art y ’ s p erfo rm an ce o r fro m act i n g t o d es t ro y an o t her p art y ’ s reas o n ab l e ex p ect at i o n s reg ard i n g t h e fru it s o f t h e co nt ract

. Cen t ex Co r p . v. Un i t ed St a t es , 3 9 5 F.3 d1 2 8 3 , 1 3 0 4 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). Fo r ex am pl e, t h i s i m

pl i edco v en an tg u aran t ees thatth e g ov ern m en twi l l n o tel i m i n at e o r res ci n dco n t ract u al b en efi ts th ro u g h act i on th ati s s p eci fi cal ly d es i g n edt o reap pro pri at e t h e b en efi t s an d t h ereb y ab ro g at e th e g ov ern m en t ’ s o bl i g at i o ns u n d er t h e co n tract

. Pr ecis io n Pi n e & Ti m b er

, In c. v. Un i t ed

St at es , 5 9 6 F.3 d8 1 7 , 8 29 (Fed . Ci r. 2 01 0 ).
Bel l /Heer y v. Un it ed

St a t es , 7 3 9 F.3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 4 -3 5 (Fed . Ci r. 2 01 4 ). Th u s , s i m p l y b ecau s e an IDIQ co n tract p erm i t s th e ag en cy t o i s s ue s o m e t as ko rd ers an d t o n o ti s s u e o t h ers d o es n o tm ean th atth e g ov ern m en t ’ s co n du cti n ad m i n is t eri n g t h e IDIQ co nt ract i s b ey o n dju d i ci al rev i ew. Th e co u rt can n o t t h erefo re ag ree wi t h d efen d an tth ati n t h i s cas e, “ as a m at t er o f l aw, t he i m pl i eddut y

o f g o o dfai t h an d fai r d eal i n g i n t h e co n tract was n o tb reach ed .” Def.’ s M o t . at 1 6 (ci ti n g Bel l /Heer y , 7 3 9 F.3 dat1 3 3 5 , an do th er cas es ).
Defen d an tal so arg u es t h atCo u n t I i n cl u d es a cl ai m fo r co n tract refo rm at i o n wh i ch can n o ts u cceed b ecau se t h e al l o cat i o n o f ri ski n th i s co nt ract was wi t h i n th e co n tract or’ s b ro add i s cret io n
. Id

. at1 7 (ci ti n g Co m p l . ¶¶ 1 33 , 1 3 9 -4 0 ). Th e co u rt n o t es , h owev er, t hatth e t erm “ co n t ractrefo rm at i o n ” i s n o wh ere t o b e fo u n di n th e co m p l ai n t , an dth at t h e p arag rap h s ci t edb y th e g o v ern m en t d o n o t req ues tth atth e co u rtrefo rm

th e co nt ract . Al t h o u g h th e fact u al al l eg at io n s p ro v i d edatth e b eg in n i n g o f t h e co m

p l ai n tm en t i o n th e ex t rem e ri s k al l o cat edt o E&E i n th e d i s p u t edco n t ract , i td o es n o tn eces s ari l y fo l l o w th atCo u n tI o f t h e co m pl ai n t req u es t s a refo rm at i o n o f t h e co n t ract . Becau s e Co u n t I al l eg es b reach o f t h e i m p l i eddu t y

o f g o o dfai th an dfai r d eal i ng an d d o es n o ts p eci fi cal l y req u es t co n tract refo rm at i o n , th i s cl ai m d o es n o ti m

pro p erl y ch al l en g e th e ag en cy ’ s d i s cret i o n i n a m an ner fo recl o s edb y th e p reced en tci t ed b y

d efen d an t

. S

ee Def.’ s M o t . at 1 7 -1 8.
It m ay b e t h atp l ai n t i ff wi l l h av e a d i ffi cu l tt i m e p ro vi n g t h atth e ag en cy
29breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in this IDIQ contract.

Under RCFC 12(b)(6), however, that is not the appropriate focus at this point. The court must not attempt to try plaintiff’s case on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. See, e.g. , Petro Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States , 90 Fed. Cl. 51, 71 (2009) (cautioning against the government’s attempt “to collapse discovery, summary judgment and trial into the pleading stages of a case” (citing Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679; Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555)). Instead, the allegations of the complaint are tested for plausibility. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678. Count I, especially when this count is considered to be a complement to Count II of the complaint, states a plausible claim for breach of the government’s implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
2. Count IV Defendant argues that Count IV fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because no plausible claim for $3,296,543.18 could be founded on the agency’s failure to timely notify the SBA of the termination of E&E’s contract. Def.’s Mot. at 23. The court must agree. First, the factual scenario here is that the agency notified the SBA six hours after notifying E&E that its contract was being terminated for the convenience of the government. Compl. Ex. 39 at 1. Thus, the pertinent question is whether the government could plausibly owe E&E $3,296,543.18 because of a six-hour delay in contravention of the advance notice provision in the contract, a notice provision provided in FAR 52.219-17. At oral argument, defendant’s counsel characterized Count IV as “kind of a silly claim.” Tr. at 19. Plaintiff entirely fails to rebut defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(6) challenge to Count IV. The topic is not addressed in either plaintiff’s opposition brief or in its sur-reply brief. 15 Even at oral argument, plaintiff never addressed the plausibility of the claim in Count IV. Rather, counsel explained that the failure to timely notify the SBA was “just sort of added fuel to the fire,” with counsel’s reference to “the fire” alluding to an alleged pattern of bad faith conduct of the agency in the award, administration and termination of the contract. Tr. at 46.

15 / E&E’s only argument concerning Count IV is contained in plaintiff’s sur-reply brief, and this argument addresses jurisdiction, not the plausibility of the claim in Count IV. SeePl.’s Sur-Reply at 5-6. 30Al t h ou g h p lai n t i ff h as n otb u tt res s ed t h e p l au s i b i li t y o f i t s cl ai m

i n Co u n t IV wi t h ci t at i o n s t o cas el aw, t he co u rtco n du ct edi t s o wn res earch an d fo u n dn o i n d i cat i o n t h at t h e SBA ad v an ce n o t i ce p ro v i si o n i n p l ai n t i ff’ s co nt ract h as ev er s up p ort eda s u cces sfu l CDA cl ai m . Fu rt her, t h e co u rt d o es n o tco n si der t h atth i s co n tract p ro vi si o n g u aran tees an y ri g h ts o f a s m al l b u si n es s p erfo rm i n g u n d er an 8 (a) co n t ract . Th e i n t ro duct i o n t o the co n t ract cl au s e co n t ai ni n g th e n o t ice p ro v is i o n ad d res s es th e co m m i t m en t s an dco n t ract i ng ri g h ts o f t h e SBA. S ee Co m p l . Ex . 6 at1 3 (n o t i n g th atth e SBA “ ag rees t o t h e fo l l o w i ng ” t erm s o f t h e co n tract ). Th e p art i cu l ar p ro vi s i o n rel i edupo n b y p l ai nt i ff i s fo u n di n a d es cri p t io n o f t h e ap po rt i o n m en to f co nt ract ad m i n i s t rat io n du t i es b etween th e ag en cy an dth e SBA. Id

. at1 4

. Th e co u rt fi n d s n o in d i cat i o n i n th e ad v an ce n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n ci t edb y p l ai n t i ff t h atth i s p ro v i s i o n es t ab l i s h es ri g h t s fo r E&E wh i ch wo u l d s up p orta CDA cl ai m . Th e g en eral ru l e i s th atan al l eg edv i o l at i o n o f a FAR p ro v i si o n wh i ch p ro v i des o n l y i n ci den t al b en efi t s t o a co n tract o r can n ots up p o rta CDA cl ai m b efo re t h i s co u rt

. S

ee, e.g
. , Fr ei

gh tl in er Co r p . v. Ca ld

er a , 2 2 5 F.3 d1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 5 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ In o rd er fo r a p ri v at e co n t ract o r t o b ri n g s u itag ai n s tth e Go v ern m en tfo r v i o l at i o n o f a reg u l at i o n , th atreg u lat i o n m u s t ex is tfo r th e b en efi t o f t h e p ri v at e co n tract o r.” (ci t i ng Ces sn a Ai r cr a ft Co . v. Da l t o n , 1 2 6 F.3 d1 4 4 2 , 1 4 5 1 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ); Ro u gh D i a mo n d Co . v. Un i t ed

St at es , 3 5 1 F.2 d6 3 6 , 6 4 0 -4 2 (Ct . Cl . 1 9 6 5 ))). Here, t h e ad v an ce n o t i ce p ro vi si o n ap p ears t o ex i s t fo r t h e b en efi to f t h e SBA an di t s co n t ract ad m i n is trat i o n fu n ct i o n, n o tfo r E&E.
Th e co u rt m

u s t al s o ag ree wi t h d efen d an t t h atth ere i s n o “p lau s i b l e cau s al l i nk ” b et ween th e ag en cy ’ s s i x -h o u r d el ay i n n o t i fy i n g th e SBA an dp l ai n t i ff’ s d am ag es i n th e am o u n to f $ 3 ,2 9 6 ,5 4 3 .1 8 . Def.’ s M o t . at2 3 . Th e co u rtn o tes , as wel l , th atth e ag en cy

h adal read y

o rd ered th e m i n im

u m am ou n t o f s erv i ces req u i redb y

th e co n t ract , ren d eri n g an y i n t erv en t i o n b y

the SBA u n l i k el y , atb es t

. Fo r al l o f t h es e reas o n s, t h e co u rtfi n d s th e cl ai m i n Co u n tIV t o l ackp l au s i b i l i t y s o as t o m eri td i s m is s al u nd er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ). 1 6 Iq b a l , 5 5 6 U.S. at6 7 8.

1 6 / The g eneral alleg ation of a pattern of bad faith conduct found throug hout the complaint and particularly in Count I Imay be arg ued by plaintiff to include some “added fuel to the fire” such as the fact that the agency failed to provide advance notice of termination to the SB A. Tr. at 46. This does not mean, however, that the ag ency ’s failure to observe this contract requirement, by

itself, g ives rise to a claim for monetary damag es. 31C. Defenda nt’s Reques t fo r a n Am ended Co m pl a i nt

Defen d an t ’ s m o t i o n i n cl ud es a req u es t t h atp l ai nt i ff cl ari fy , th ro u g h t h e fi li n g o f an am en d edco m pl ai n t , th e d am ag es req u es t edfo r an y co u n ts i n th e co m p l ai n tn o td i s m i s s edb y

th is co u rt . Def.’ s M o t . at1 -2 , 2 4 -2 5 ; Def.’ s Rep l y at 9 ; Tr. at4 -5 , 2 0 , 5 9 . Inp l ai n t i ff’ s o p p o s i t i o n b ri ef, E&E’ s s t at edp o s it i o n i s th at t h e co m pl ai n ti s n o treq ui red t o b e an y m o re s p eci fi c as t o th e n atu re o f t he d am ag es req u es t ed

. Pl .’ s Op p . at1 2 , 2 0 . At o ral arg u m en t , p l ai nt i ff’ s p os i t i o n was m o re n u an ced . Pl ai n t i ff’ s co un s el as s u redth e co u rtthatth e d am ag es s etfo rt h i n the co m

p l ai ntwere s p eci fi c en o u g h , b u t ex pres s eds o m e wi ll i n g n es s t o ad d s p eci fi ci t y

i f req u iredb y

th e co u rt . Tr. at3 4 -3 6

. Th e co u rt n o t es th atth is o p i n i o n h as d i s m i s s ed t wo co u n ts o f t h e co m p l ai n t an d h as al s o ex am i nedthe p l au s i bi l i t y o f t he rem ai n i ng cl ai m s b efo re t h e co u rt

. Th es e ru li n g s h av e co n s id erab l y n arro wed t h e fo cu s o f t h e d i s pu t edcl ai m s i n th i s s u i t . Du e t o th es e ch an g edci rcu m s t an ces , i n th e co u rt ’ s v i ew t h e b es tco u rs e o f act i on atth i s p oi n ti s t o d en y as m oo td efen d an t ’ s req u es t t hatth e co u rto rd er p l ai n t i ff t o fi l e an am en d ed co m p l ai n t

. CONCLUSI ON
Acco rd i ng l y , i ti s h ereb y ORDERED th at : (1 ) Defen d an t ’ s M o ti o n t o Di sm i s s, fi l edJ u l y 2 8 , 2 01 4 , i s DENI ED i n p artas t o (a) Di s m i s s al o f Co unts I an dI I o f t h e co m p l ai n tu n d er ei th er RCFC 1 2 (b )(1 ) o r RCFC 1 2(b )(6 ); (b ) Defen d an t ’ s req u es tthatp l ai n ti ff fi l e an am en d edco m p l ai n t ; an d
GRANTED i n p artas t o (c) Co unt I I I o f t he co m p l ai n t , wh ich i s DI SMI SSED wi t h o u t p reju d i ce fo r l acko f s ubjectm at t er juri s d i ct i on ;

32(d ) Co unt I Vo f t h e co m p l ai n t , wh i ch i s DI SMI SSED wi t h p reju d i ce fo r fai l u re t o s t at e a cl ai m up o n wh i ch rel i ef can b e g ran ted ; an d (2 ) On o r b efo re Ma rch 2 3 , 2 01 5 , d efen d an ts h al l FI LE i t s Ans w er o r o th er res p o ns e t o Co u n t s I an dII o f t he co m p lai n t

.

/ s / Ly n n J . Bu s h LYNN J . BUSH Sen i o r J u d g e

33