-1- NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON

File Na me: 07a0884n.06 Filed: De cembe r 27, 2007 No. 07-3251 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT STEELSERVI CE CORP ORATI ON, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. BO ARD OF COUNTY COMMI SSI ONERS OF HA MI L TON COUNTY, OH I O, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO
OPI NI ON

Be for e : G UY , M OORE, a nd G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. RONAL D L E E GILMAN , Circuit Judge. I n D e c e mbe r o f 2 00 0, the B oa rd of County Commi ssioners of Ha

milton C ounty , Ohio (the County ) awarde d Steel Service Corp., a Mississippi corpor ation, the g ener al contra ct (the Contra ct) for the er ec t i on of the stee l superstructur e for the Cin ci n n at i R eds Gre at Amer ican B all Park (the B all Park). B y October of 2001, the County

had dir e c te d St e e l Se rv ic e to a c c e le rate its wo rk to ma ke up fo r d e lay s th a t ha d o c c ur re d o n th e pr oje c t. Steel Service did so, and in Dec em b er of 2001 submitt ed a c laim to the County for its additional costs, including ex t ra co s t s i n curr ed by its subcontractors. Amonth later, the County and Steel Service executed Chang e Or der #1, w ith neither par ty acc epti n g re s p o n s ibilit y

for the de lay s, but

a g re e ingthat th e Co un ty wo uld make a pr ov isi on a l pa

y me nt t o St e e l Se rv ic e that w ou ld a pp ly tow ard the latte r’ s a dd iti on a l c os ts f or the a c c e le ra

te d w or k. I n 200 4, Ste e l Ser

vic e fi le d s uit

a g a ins tNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 2

-- the County

for br eac h of contra ct, alleg ing that the County had not paid Steel Service ’s additional costs, which then totaled a pproxi mately

$5 milli on. The County

moved for summar

y judgme nt, arguing that Steel Service ’s claim wa s settled by Cha ng e O r d e r # 9 , e xe c u t e d i n A u g u s t o f 2 0 0 3 , an d t h a t a p o rt i o n o f S t e e l S e r v i c e ’ s c la im w a s a “pass- throug h” cla im on behalf of its subcontra ctors that is not cog nizable und er Ohio law. The dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d summ ary jud g me nt fo r the County on the se g ro un ds . F or the re a so ns se t f

or th below, we RE VE RSE the jud gm en t o f the district cour t and REMAND the ca se for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. I. BACKG ROUND On Dec ember

20, 200 0 , t he County

and Steel Servic e ente red into the Contrac t, where by Steel Service ag ree d to act as the g ener al contra ctor in the fa brication an d er ec t i o n o f the stee l superstruc ture for the Ba ll Par k. The initial contr act sum wa s approximately $33 milli on. Severa l documents comprise the Contract, including a Standar d For m of Ag ree ment and the Ge nera l and Supplementary

Conditi ons, both of which we re e x ecute d on Americ an Institut e of Arc hitects (AIA) fo rm s th a t we re mod if

ie d for the B a ll Par

k pro je c t. E vid e nc e in t

he re c or d in dic a te s th a t th e County draf ted the Contrac t, which was a war ded throug h a public bidding proce ss. Work o nth e p r o

je c t c o mm e n c e d

o no r a b o u t D e c e mb e r

2 1 , 2 0 0 0
. B a s e d

o nth e in it ia l construction sche dule, Steel S ervic e claims that it was to beg in ere ction of the stee l superstructur e in A pril of 2001 and c omplete the proje ct by Dec ember

of that same year . Delay s ensued, howe ver,
and a c tua l c on str

uc tio n d id n ot b e g in u

nti l July of 20 01
. Ne ith e r part y ha s a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty fo r t he de lay s.No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 3

-- I n October

of 2001, Hunt Construction Group, Inc., the C o n s t ruction Manag er f or the County , d i re cted Steel Ser vice in wr iting to under

take “ Ex traordina

ry Measur es, including the pr ov isi on of a dd iti on a l manp ow e r, sh if ts, ov e rt ime and

e qu ipm e nt” in o rd e r t o c omp le te its wo rk in
acc ordanc e with the Contract and the projec t c onstruction schedule

. The re cord indicates that Hunt had issued the same direc tive in both May and September of 2001. Whether the May direc tive was

ma de or a lly

or in wri tin g is unc le ar; the Se pte mbe r d ir e c tiv e wa s in dis pu ta bly or a l. Pa ra gra p h 8.2.7 of the Contrac t defines Extraordinar y Measur es as “ work[ing] additional shifts or overtime, supply [i ng ] additi onal manpowe r, equipment and fac iliti es, and . . . othe r similar
measure s.” The sa

me par agr ap h re q uires Steel Servic e to take suc h measure s, at the County ’s expense, if the County

deems them nece ssary . But para g raph 8.2.8 oblig ates Steel Servic e to take Ex traordina

ry Measur es at its own expense if the delay s result from a ny fault, neg lect, omission, or act of Steel Service . Steel S ervic e alleg es that the Extraordinar y Measur es it was dire cted to take
we re ne c e ssa

r y t o m a k e u

p f o r t i m e l o s ta s a

r e s u l to f t h e C o u n t y ’ s i n a t t e n t i o nt o t h e p r o j e c t, incomplete and ina dequate structura l-steel desig ns provided b y the County , and the County ’s constant re visions to t he desig ns—all of which, it claims, disrupted a nd hindere d its performa

nce. Ne ith e r t he County ’s br ie f, no r the re c or d g e ne ra lly , co nta ins an expla natio n f ro m th e Cou

nty a s to
w h y t h e E x t r a o r d i n ar

y M e a s u r e s w e r e n e c e s s ar y. Steel Service confirme d the Ext raor dinary Measur es di re ct i v e in a letter to Hunt dated October 8, 2001, and ale rted Hunt that Steel Servic e would “be submitti ng a cla im to y ou for a ny and

a ll c os ts” re late d to the dir e c tiv e . I n De c e mbe r of 20 01 , Stee l Ser vic e se nt a

se c on d le tte r t o H un t, this ti me containingSteel Service ’s “c laim fo r eq u itable contra ct adjustment resulting from y ourNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 4

-- direc tion to acce lerate [S teel Servic e’s] work” on the projec t. T h e l et t er c ontained a “ Claim for Ad dit ion a l Co sts .” Ste e l Se rv ic e a sse rt e d i n th e let ter that, “ [p]e r t

he te rm s o f o ur

Con tr a c t, part ic u la r ly 4
. 7
. 7 , 8
. 2 an d 8
. 3 , St e e l Se r v ic e is e n ti tl e d to th e c o mp e n s a ti o n r e qu e s te d for the extraordinary

measure s require d to implement the di rec ted Recove ry Schedule a s discussed below and as refe renc ed in Steel Service ’s I nitial Notice of I ntent to File Claim dated Oc tober 8, 2001, a nd Recove ry Schedule letter

dated Oc tober 12, 2001.” “Claims” ar e g overne d by para g raphs 4.7 a

nd 4.8 of the Contract. Parag raph 4.7.1 define s a “Claim” a s a dema nd or assertion by one of the parties seeking , [as] a matter of rig ht, adjustment or interpr etation of Contrac t terms, pay ment of m o n ey , extension of tim e or othe r relief with respec t to the te rms of the Contract. The ter m “Claim” also includes other disputes and matters in question betwe en the [County ] and [St eel Ser vice] arising out of or r elating to the Contract. Cl ai m s m u st be made by written notice. The re sp on sib ili ty

to s ub sta

nti a te Cla im s sh a ll r e st w iththe pa rt y makin g the Cla im. [Ste e l Se rv ic e ] sha ll b e e nti tle d to make a Cla im fo r an inc re a se in t he Con tr a c t T ime and the Contract Sum for actua l costs incurre d by [S teel Servic e] for re asons other than the failure of [S teel Service ] to perf orm its oblig ations un d er t h e C ontrac t Do c ume nts
.

Para g ra ph4. 7. 7 o f the Con tr a c t pe rm its Ste e l Se rv ic e to fi le wr itt e n no tic e of a c la im fo r an in c re a se in the contra ct s u m , and par ag raph 4.8.5 r equire s the parties to submit claims to mediation before initiating litigation. Terms relating to time—including time limits, job prog ress, and Extraordinary Me a sure s— are a dd

re sse d in pa ra g ra ph8. 2. De lay s, a c c e le ra

tio n, dis ru pti on , a nd e xten sio ns of

tim e
are g overne d by

para g raph 8.3.No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 5
-- J ust over a month af

ter Steel Servic e ale rted Hunt of its Claim, Steel Service , the County , and Hunt, along with the projec t manag er, a rchitec t, a nd the Cincinnati Reds, e x ecute d the first of nine chang e orde rs. Chang e Or der N umber 1 (CO #1) sets for th the parties’ ag ree ment relating to Steel Service ’s initialc la im

f o r a d d it iona l compensation in the amount of $3,292,000 f or the Extraordinar

y Measur es it ha d been direc ted to take by Hunt. CO #1 states that “[o] n Dec ember 18, 2001, pursuant to A rt ic le s 4 .7 .7 , 8 .2 & 8 .3 of the Con tr a c t, [St e e l Se rv ic e ] sub mitte d a Re c ov e ry

Cla im Co st Document se eking the sum of appr ox imately . . . $3,292,000.00 from the [County ] . . . (the ‘Claim’) .” The parties acknow ledg e in CO #1 that Steel Service had alre ady begun to impleme n t the Extr a o r d i n ar

y M e a s u r e s an d t h a t S t e e l S e r v i c e h a d i n c u r

r e d , an d w o u l d c o n t i nu e t o i n c u r , c os ts associate d with such measur es. CO #1 also stated, howe ver, that the County was in the proce ss of revie wing and evaluating Steel Service ’s Claim “ with r espec t to entitlement and quantum” and that “a determinati o nh a s n o t y e t b e e nma d e a s to th e e xte n t s u c h E xtr a o r d in ar y M e a s u r e s w e r e ma de

n e c e s s ar y b y t h e f a u l t , n e g l e c t , a c t s o r

f a i l u r e t o a c to f

” S t e e l S e r

v i c e . T h e C o u n t y

n e v e rt h e l e ss ag ree d to make a “ Provisional Pay ment” to Steel Service in the amount of $700,000 for the limited purpose of

partially funding the additional costs incurr ed by Steel Service arising from the Ex traordina

ry Measur es, subject to a f

inal deter mination and resolution of the Claim. Under CO #1, the parties f

urther a g ree d that no liability was ad m i t ted with respe ct to the Claim

— including, but not limited to, the responsibility for the c osts associated with the Ex traordina

ry Measur es—and that the amount of t he Provisional Pay ment would be deduc ted from the amount ultimately deter mined to be due to Steel Service , if any , reg ardingits Cl aim. I f, howe ver,No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 6

-- the Provisional Pay

ment was late r found to excee d the amount finally due to Steel S ervic e, then Steel Service would be re quired to re pay the County

for that e x cess amount. Chang e Or ders ( COs) are authorized and g overne d by Article 7 of t h e C o n t ra ct, and are define d as “wr itten instrument[s] prepa red by the Construction Ma nag er [Hunt] and signe d by the [County], [Hu

nt], Pr oje c t Ma

na g e r, Ar c hit e c t and [Ste e l Se rv ic e ], st a tin g the ir a g re e me nt u

po n a ll
o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : a

c h an g e i nt h e W o r

k ; t h e a m o u n t o f t h e a d

j u s t m e n t o f t h e C o n t r a c t S u m , i f an y; and the e x tent of the a djustment in t he Contrac t Time, if any .” (Par agra p h 7
. 2
. 1 ) “W ork” me ans “the c onstruction, service s and super vision required by

the Contract Doc uments.” A CO is the culmination of a proc ess in wh i ch Hunt could re quest ce rtain cha ng es in the Wor k, and pr op os e c or

re sp on din g a dju stm e nts , if any , in the c on tr a c t s um o r t

he c on tr a c t ti me , in the form of

a wr itten order c alled a Construction Chang e Dire ctive (CCD). ( Parag raph 7.3) Steel Service could then respond by either signing the CCD, ther eby ag ree ing with the terms of the CCD, or advising Hunt or the a rchitec t of any

disa gre em ent t hat Steel Service had with the propose d chang es or a djustments. (Parag raphs 7.3.3 a nd 7.3.4) Ac cordingto J im Si monson, the Ex ecutive Vice Pre sident of Steel Service who had ove rall re s ponsibili ty for Steel Ser

vice’ s work on the p ro j ect, CC Ds wer e ty

pically acc ompanied by

revised dr awing s or sketche s that require d chang es to the construction. Simo ns on e xpla in ed in his de po sit ion that, u po n r e c e ivi nga

CCD , St e e l Se rv ic e wo uld submit t o Hunt a Construction Chang e Proposal (CCP). Acc ording to Sim onson, a CCP i s “a proposal for

a cha ng e orde r to the contra ct.” The County , which ag ree s with Sim onson’s descr iption of a CCP, no te d that Stee l Ser vic e su bmi tte d CCPs not onl y in re sp on se to CCD s f ro m H un t, b ut a lsoNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 7
-- on its own init iative “whe never the company encounte red a condition that it believed might a ffe ct its work.” The se CCPs, t he C o u n t y explained, “included a

descr iption of the alleg ed cha ng ed condition, as well as any proposed adjustment to t he contr act sum or c ontrac t time that St eel Ser vice
was see king.” Hundre ds of CCDs, CC Ps, and Requests For I nformation (RF I s ), al o ng with thousands of sketche s and dra

wing s , we re issued dur ing the course of the proje ct. Steel Service sometimes
rec eived sev er al C C Ds or other c hang es in a sing le day . Simons on explained that the company manag ed the f

low of docume nts by utiliz ing the CCP s as a “docume nt trac king sy stem for doc ument control.” Ea ch of the se docume nts was assig ned a numbe r, so that all of the pa rties involved in the pr oje c t c ou ld t

ra c k th e inf

or matio n a nd re vis ion s. Th is s y ste m is re fl e c te d in CO s #2 -9 , wh ic h li st the items that a

re resolved by eac h CO. Every chang e item ha s both a unique CCD or RFI number

and a un iqu e CCP numb e r. Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im, ho we ve r, do e s n ot r e fe re nc e a CCD or a CCP, either in the D ece mber 2001 letter or in CO #1. As CCDs and CCP s were exchang ed, the pa rties would negot iate, settle, a nd resolve the
c ha ng e s b y e xec uti ngCO s. Ste e l Se rv ic e c on te nd s (a nd the County do e s no t di sp ute ) t hat th e County draf ted each C O, which was ba sed on an A I A form. Thr oug hout the course of the proje ct, the par ties executed a total of

nine COs. CO #1 addre ssed S teel S ervic e’s Cl aim relating to the Ex traordina ry Measur es take n, and COs #2-9 e ach se ttled any wher e fr om as few

as one to a s many as seve nty -five CCDs and CCP s. Steel Service asser t s that it subst antially completed the e rec tion of the Ba ll Park’s steel superstruc ture on or about May 6, 2002. There afte r, t he parties continued to execute C Os to resolveNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 8

-- the outstanding CCDs and CCP s , and S teel Servic e submitted two amendments to its Dece mber 2001 Claim to i nclude a d d i t i o n al costs that ar ose fr om the Ex traordina ry Measur es, for

a total of $5 ,1 37 ,2 01 .2 7. Am on g the a dd iti on a l c os ts w e re c os ts i nc ur re d b y B e n- Hur C on stru cti on , L L C, Steel Service ’s er ection subcontra ctor. The pa rties eve ntually

enter ed mediation to resolve their outstanding disputes, a s require d by the Con tr a c t. D isp ute ov e r t he De c e mbe r 2 00 1 Cl aim was on e of the iss ue s su

bmi tte d to
me diatio n. I n Augus t of

20 03 , d ur ing a br e a k in t

he me diatio n p ro c e e din g s, the pa rt ie s e xec ute d CO #9 . The pa

rt ie s the re a ft e r co nti nu e d the ir e ff or ts at me diatio n, bu t w e re ult imate ly un su c c e ssf

ul i n
rea c h in g a r e s o luti o n o f th e ir d if f e r e n c e s . St e e l Se r

v ic e f il e d th e p r e s e n t s u it in M ar ch of 2004 ag ainst the County

for br eac h of contra ct. Neither the re co rd nor either par ty ’s brief contains any further details about the mediation procee dings. The County

filed a motion for summar y judgme nt in March of

2006, asser

ting two g rounds in support of its moti on. I ts first argument was that “the plain terms of Chang e Order No. 9 pr eclude Steel Service ’s claims” be cause CO #9 constitutes a “full, final and complete waiver and settlement with respec t to any

and all cla ims, de mands and ca uses of a ction relating to cha ng es af fec ting Steel Service on the Project.” CO #9, in r eleva nt pa rt, rea ds as follows (with the sentenc es numbere d for
ease of re fer ence throug hout this opi nion): [1] Th is C ha

ng e Or de r #9 is a lum

p sum se ttl e me nt and re so lut ion wi th r e sp e c t to a ll of the c laims, demands and c auses of action of [Steel Service ] aris i n g o u t of the Cha ng e s, wi th r e sp e c t to [Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s ] ove rh e a d, pr of it, g e ne ra l c on dit ion s, fe e s, costs and expenses including , but not lim ited to, those fe es , costs and expenses a sso c iate d w iththe e ng in e e r i n g , d e t a i l i n g , r e d e t a i l i n g , fa br ic a tio n, sh op la

bo r, fr e ig ht, p ai n t , ra w m at er i al s , er ec t i o n an d eq u i p m en t (t h e “ C h an ge O rd er ”)

. [ 2 ] T h i s C h an ge Or de r S e tt lem ent con sti tut e s a fu ll, fi na l and

c omp le te wa ive r a

nd se ttl e me nt w ithNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

-- 9

-- respe ct to any and all claims, demands and cause s of action that [S teel Servic e] has arising out of or re lating to the Cha ng es. [3] Notwithstanding the fore g oing, [the County] an d [Ste e l Se rv ic e ] ea c h h e re by e xpre ssl y

re se rv e [s] any

and a ll r ig hts , claims, demands, de fense s , o r ca u ses of a ction which either may have unde r the Con tr a c t w ithre g ard to c la ims no t se ttl e d by the Cha ng e Or de r S e ttl e me nt. [4] Th is Chang e Or der #9 settles all TC-05A CCP ’s submitt ed by Steel Service Corporation with the exception of CCP Nos. 440, 526 & 527. (TC-05A is the identify

ing numbe r of the Contra ct.) Be low the fore g oing pa rag raph is a list of 36 C C Ds an d R FI s, eac h listed with a
corr espondi n g C C P n u m b er. COs #1, 2, a nd 5 do not contain any

of the a bove-quote d lang uag e. Eac h of COs #3, 4, 6 , 7 , 8 , an d 9 contain the f irst, second, a

nd third sentence s, but only CO #9
c on ta ine d th e fo ur

th s e nte nc e . Q uo tin g lan guag e fr om t he se c on d s e nte nc e of

CO #9 , th e County argued that CO #9 “e x pressly extended to ‘all of the claims, demands and c auses of action’ a rising
o u t o f t hose cha

ng es,” a nd that “settlement of a ll of the CCP ’s re solved all of Steel Servic e’s
c la ims .” Ste e l Se rv ic e , o n th e oth e r h and , c on te nd e d th a t th e fo ur th s e nte nc e of

CO #9 “ se ttl e s o nly ‘CCPs,’ not t he ‘c laims’ expressly rese rved in Chang e Or der #9 as well as i n Chang e Order #s 3, 4, 6 , 7 an d 8
. ” ( E mp h a s i s i no r i g i n a l

. ) T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtg r an t e d s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tt o t h e C o u n t y,
c on c lud ingthat [t ]he unique lang uag e of Chang e Or der #9, ‘ settles all TC-05A CCPs submitted by Steel Service Corporation with the exception of CCP Nos. 440, 528 & 627.’ [quoting the fourth se ntence of CO #9] .
. . [T] he Court finds the lang uag e of Chang e Or der #9 to be clea

r and una mbiguous a s to its i nten t to settle not only the par ticulars of Chang e Or der #9, but a lso the cumulative eff ect of Chang e Orde rs 1-8 as de scribed in 7 .2 .4 of

the Con tr a c t Co nd iti on s, re se rv ingon ly the thr e e e nume ra

te d CC Ps.No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 0

- - Rather c ry

ptically and without explanation, the district court also noted that “ C hang e Or ders a re intertwined with the de ploy ment of Extraordinary

Measur es” a

nd , l at er, that “the utiliz ation of Ex traordina

ry Measur es is intertwined with CCPs.” I n the County ’s se c on d argume nt in su pp or t of its mot ion fo r summa

ry jud g me nt, the County
c on te nd e d that so me of the dama g e s c la ime d by Ste e l Se rv ic e s “ are no t dama g e s th at i t h as i tse lf incurre d, but are attributable to ‘ sponsored’ claims of its subcontractors,” and that the subc ontrac tors “ca n have no c laim ag ainst the County for brea ch of c ontrac t” bec ause the re w as no privity betwee n the County

and the subcontrac tors. Both parties ag ree d that Ohio law has not e ndorsed an exception to t he pr ivi ty re qu ir e me nt f

or pa ss- thr ou g h c la ims

. The Contract betwee n the County and Steel Service sets forth a g en er al contra ctorsubcontrac tor ar ra n gem ent for the projec t, where by Steel Service ’s subcontra ctors incur costs for the ir wo rk on the pr oje c t and

bil l th os e c os ts t o St e e l Se rv ic e . ( Para g ra ph5. 3. 2. 2) Ste e l Se rv ic e is
re qu ir e d, in tu rn, to b ill the su bc on tr a c tor s’ c os ts— a lon g wi th t he c os ts t hat Ste e l Se rv ic e its e lf incurs—to the County in its m onthly Application for Pay

ment. (Para g raph 9.3) The County then pay s Steel Service for both Stee l Ser vice’ s own costs and for the costs of S t ee l S er v i ce’s
su bc on tr a c tor s. (P ara g ra

ph s 9 .3 and

9. 6) Para g ra

ph9. 6. 2 p ro vid e s th a

t S t e e l S e r v i c e “ sh a ll p ro mpt ly pay eac h Subcontrac tor, upon rece i pt of pay ment from the [County ] on account of suc h Subcontrac tor’s portion of the Work, the amount to which said Subcontractor is entitled.” Steel S e r v i c e a c kn o w l e d g e s t h a tt h e r e i s n o p r i v i t y o f c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n i t s s u b c o n t r a c t o r s an d

t h e C o u n t y. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o “ a g r e e [d ] w it h D e f e n d an t’ s ar g u me n t t

h a t O h io d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e sponsored claims and as Steel Service has no liability to [ subcontrac tor] Ben-H ur it would have noNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 1

- - leg al basis upon which to asse rt a c laim ag ains t De fe n d ant C ounty on behalf

of B en-H ur.” Ac c or dingl y , th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th a t “ De fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt a s it relates to sponsored subcontrac tor claims is gr anted.” The c ourt observe d, howeve r, that issues of fa c t r e ma ine d w ithre g ard to w he the r S te e l Se rv ic e is e nti tle d to re c ov e r i ts o wn a ddit io nal c os ts incurre d under the Contract. Steel Servic e timely filed this appea l, in which both parties a ssert the
same argume nts that th e y ra ise d b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt
.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review We reviewde novo the district cour t’s g rant of summary

judgme nt. In t’ l U

nio n v . Cu mm ins , Inc ., 434 F.3d 478, 4 8 3 (6th Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is proper whe re no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts and the m o v i n g party is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ). I n c on sid e ri nga mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt , th e di stric t c ourt mus t
c o n s t r u e t h e e v i d e n c e an d

dr aw a l l r e a s o n ab l e i n f e r e n c e s i nf

a v o r o f t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The centr al issue is “whethe r the e vidence prese nts a sufficie nt disag ree ment to require s u b m i s sion to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one par ty must prevail as a

matter of la

w.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). B. Sub stantive law Th e County is a loc a l g ov e rnme nt e nti ty inc or po rate d in

Oh io, and

Ste e l Se rv ic e is inc or po rate d a nd ha s its pri nc ipa l pla c e of bu sin e ss in M iss iss ipp i. “ I n d ive rs ity c a se s su c h a s th is,No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 2

- - we a pply state law in a ccor dance with the controlli ng decisions of the s tate supreme court.” Al lst ate Ins. Co. v. Thrift

y Re nt-A-Car Sys., Inc ., 249 F.3d 450, 454 ( 6th Cir. 2001). The Contrac t at issue calls for Ohio law to apply . (Para g raph 13.1.1) Under Ohio law, “the construction of written contra cts is a matter of law.” Hil-Roc Condo. Un it Owners Ass’n v. HW C Realty, Inc

. , 2 0 0 6 O h io A p p . L E X I S 4 7 0 1 a t * 1 1 ( O h io Ct
. A p p. Sept. 14, 2006). “The g oal of c o nstruction of a c ontrac t is to find the intent of the parties.” Abrams v. Siege l , 850 N.E.2d 99, 106 (Ohio C t
. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ). Ag ree ment of the pa rties “is to be
asce rtained f

rom the languag e of the instrument itself, and there can be no implication inconsistent with the express terms there of.” Hamilton Ins. Servs. v . Nationw ide Ins. Cos ., 714 N.E.2d 898, 901 (O hio 19 99 ); see also Abrams , 850 N.E.2d at 106 (“ The pre sumption i s that the parties’ intent may be asc erta ined in the languag e used in the w ritten instrument.”). Fur thermore , a contr act “ is to be rea d as a w hole and the intent of eac h part g ather ed fr om a consideration of the whole.” Saunders v. M ortensen , 801 N.E.2d 452, 455 (Ohio 2004). “ [T] he entire doc ument is to be g iven weig ht,” and the “p l ai n rule of c onstruction require s that ever y provision of a c ontrac t shall be g iven eff ect if possible.” Abrams , 850 N.E.2d at 106. And “ except wh e re the re fo rm a tio n o f a wr itt e n c on tr a c t is so ug ht i n e qu ity , e vid e nc e c an not be in tr od uced t o show an a g ree ment betwee n the par ties mater i al l y d i fferent fr om that expressed by clea r and unambig uous lang uag e of the instrument.” La ti n a v . W o o d p a th D e v . Co. , 567 N.E.2d 262, 264 (Ohio 1991). C. The eff

ect of CO #9No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 3

- - The four th sentence of CO #9 states that it “set tles all TC-05A CCP’s submitt ed by Steel Se rv ic e Cor

po ratio n w iththe ex c e pti on of CCP N os . 4 40 , 5 26 & 52 7. ” (E mph a sis a dd e d. ) T his lang uag e is clea

r and una mbiguous. Se e Sc ha c hn e r v . B lue Cro ss & Bl ueSh ie ld , 77 F.3d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Contra ct lang uag e is a mbiguous if it is subj ect to two re asonable interpre tations.”). C O # 9 u n am b i gu o u s l y

s et t l edal l o f S t ee l S erv i ce ’s o u t s t an d i n g CCPs , b u t did not settle St eel S erv i ce ’s o u t s t an d i n g claims

. I n addition to the plain lang uag e of the sentenc e itself, this conclusion is supported by

the par ties’ inclusion of the third sentenc e, wher eby they “expressly rese rve[d] any

an d a ll r ig h ts [an d ] c lai ms . . . with reg ard to c lai ms not settled by the Chang e Or der Settlement.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, at t he same time that the parties se ttled all but three CCPs , they rese rved their rig hts relating to outstanding c laims not settled by CO #9. Both the County ’s position and the district court’s c onclusion—that CO #9 settled Steel Service ’s Claim—rely on the assumption that the Cla im i s a CCP an d a

re a din gof

CO #9 that g ive s n o e ff

e c t to its thi rd

se nte nc e . We re sp e c tf

ull y d i s agr ee wi t h b o th t h e a s s u mp t i o nan d t h e r ea d i n g. 1. A “

c lai m ” versus a “CCP ” I n li g ht o f t

he un a mbi g uo us langua g e qu ote d a bo ve , CO #9 c ou ld s e ttl e Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im
on ly if the Cla im w e re a

CCP. B ut o ur re vie w o f t he Con tr a c t and

the re c or d s ho ws that th e Cla im is n ot a CCP in e ith e r f or m or su bs tanc e . A s a

matte r o f f

or m, S te e l Se rv ic e ’s fi rs t le tte r i n r e sp on se to H un t’ s E xtra or din ary

Me a sure s d ir e c tiv e , d a te d O c tob e r 8 , 2 00 1, state d th a t Ste e l Se rv ic e wo uld be “submitting a

claim” for costs related t o the accele ration of its work. Cons istent with that letter, Steel Service there af

t er s u b m i tted a “Claim for Additional Costs ” in Dec ember of 2001. TheNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 4

- - Dec ember

letter re fer s repe atedly

to Steel Service ’s “Claim” a nd nowher e does it mention a CCD, a CCP, or the CCP proce ss. The County , moreove r, by executing CO #1 in January of 2002, expressly acknow ledg ed and
acc epted that Steel Service had submitt ed a “Rec overy Cost Claim Document” for c osts associated with the Ex traordina

ry Measu res a cce leration. Both this document and Steel Servic e’s pr ior
corr espondenc e re peate dly ref er to the “ Claim”; nei t h er ref ere nces a CCD or CCP , and neither invokes the CCP or CO process. I ndeed, the second para g raph of CO #1 explicitl y rec og nizes the fac t that the Claim wa s submitt ed pursuant to A rticle 4 of the Contract, which g overns “ Claims and Disputes,” and spe cifica lly cites par ag raph 4.7.7 , t h e p rovi sion that permits “Claims for Additional Costs .” Al so te lli ngis the fa c t th a t th e Cla im d oe s n ot b e ar t he ide nti fy

ing mark of

a CCP— a CCP

nu mb e r . A c c o r d in g to Si mo n s o n ’ s te s ti mo n y , w h ic h is s u p p o rte d b y CO s # 2

- 9 an d

is u n d ispute d by the County , e a c h CC P wa s a ssi g ne d a un iqu e do c ume nt n

umb e r f or tr a c kin g purp os e s. Th e Cla im bear s no such number o r “C C P ” d es ignation, and there are no ref ere nces to such a

number or de sig natio n in

the re c or d th a t c or

re sp on d to the Cla im. “Claims” and “CCP s,” m oreove r, are dis tinguishable not only in form, but also in substance

. As n o te d in Pa

rt I a b o v e , th e Co n tr a c t d e f

in e s a “ c la im ” a s a d e ma n d o r a s s e rti o n b y o ne of the parties se eking , as a m atter of rig ht, adjustment or interpre tation of Contract ter ms, pay ment of
mon e y , e xten sio n o f t ime , o r o the r r e lie f w ith re sp e c t to the te rm s o f t he Con tr a c t. Ac la im m ay a lso include other

disputes and matters in question betwe en the pa rties. (Para g raph 4.7.1)No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 5
- - Steel Service ’s Claim is clearly a “c laim” under

that definition. Hunt, on behalf of the County , direc ted Steel Service to undertake Ex traordina ry Measur es to make up for lost time in the projec t construction sche dule. Steel Service , in turn, undertook such me asure s an d incurre d additional costs in doing so—fa cts that the County acc epted in CO #1 and doe s not now dispute. I n it s D e c e mbe r 2 00 1 le tte r, Ste e l Se rv ic e no tif ie d th e County that, und e r the te rm s of the Con tr a c t, it “ is e nti tle d to the c omp e ns a tio n r e qu e ste d” fo r s uc h a dd iti on a l c os ts. Ste e l Se rv ic e , in o the r w or ds , asser ted a contrac tual rig ht to pay ment for the extra costs incurre d in perfor ming the E x traordina

ry Measur es re quested. The descr iption of St eel Ser vice’ s Claim in C O #1, which wa s acc epted by the County , is consistent with Steel Service ’s Dec ember 2001 letter. Such a

n asser tion satisfies the
c o n tr a c t d e f

in it io no f a “ c la im , ” w h ic h in c lu d e s an“ a ssertio nb y o n e o f th e p arti e s s e e k in g , a [s ] a matter of r ight, . . . [the] pay ment of money .” (Par ag raph 4.7.1) Th e way th e par

tie s d e fi ne d a

nd de a lt w ithCCPs do e s n ot a pp ly to S te e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im. Al tho ug h th e te rm

“ CCP” is n ot d e fi ne d a

ny wh e re in the Con tr a c t and a pp e ars , un de fi ne d, on ly

in CO s # 3- 9, the pa

rt ie s ag re e on its me anin g , whi c h J im Simon so n o f S te e l Se rv ic e e xpla ine d in his deposition. A C CP, as not ed in Part I above, is “a proposal for a cha ng e orde r to the contra ct” a nd is used to propose a ch an ge i n t he Work—either in r esponse to a CCD or RF Ifrom Hunt or upon Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s ide nti fi c atio n o f the ne e d for a c ha ng e in the Wor

k— and c or re sp on din g a dju stm e nts to the contra ct sum or construc tion tim e sche dule. S t ee l S erv i ce ’s C l ai m , as s et fo rt h i ni t s De ce mb er 2 0 0 1 l et t er , i s n o t a “ p ro p o s al fo r ach an ge order to the Contract.” It does not propose a chang e in t h e wo rk. I n fac t, it is not a proposal f orNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 6

- - any thi nga t a ll. Ra the r, it i s a de mand fo r c omp e ns a tio n th a t Ste e l Se rv ic e be lie ve s it ha s a ri g ht t o
rec over unde r the ter

ms of the Contract. Fur thermore , even a cursor

y revie w of the CCP s submitt ed during the course of the projec t illust rate s the substantive distinction between Steel Ser vice’ s Claim and a CCP. C C P 2 7 1 , for example, memorializes that “[m ]embers MK4004 & MV4004 [are] revis ed t o W14x 48 and W14x 61.” Similarly , CCP 291 is describe d as “[d]esign re visions to suit SKS 639 chang es to light tower to a llow for lig ht fix ture c lear ance .” CCP 387, jus t to give a nother e x ample, ca lls for Steel Service to “[s] horten c olumns in Area 7 due to incorre ct conc rete elevations.” Th e C l aim, unlike the CCPs listed in the various COs, does not propose or descr ibe s pecif ic chang es i n the construc tion of the B all Park; it instead asser t s a co n t ractual rig ht to compensation for the costs of the Extr a or din ary

Me a sure s. B ut t he County

argue s th a t “ the c la ims Ste e l Se rv ic e pr e se nte d in the laws uit be low

we re fi rs t pr e se nte d d

ur ing the c ours e of the Pr oje c t thr ou g h th e c on tr a c t c ha ng e pr oc e ss, ” and

that “ the CCP pr oc e ss w a s th e g e ne sis of the c la ims Ste e l S ervic e purs ue d in the laws uit .” I n s up po rt of its

argume nt, the County

po int s to Simo ns on ’s de po sit ion , in wh ic h h e sa id t

hat “ wh a t si mpl y

be c a me a cha ng e proposa l f

or the acc eler ation cost has now morphe d into a claim which ha s now morphed i n t o a l aw s u i t
. ” T h e C o u n t y ’s ar gu m en t , h o we v er , i s u n av ai l i n g. Nothing in the r ecor d, including Simonson’s comments, sug g ests that Steel Service intended to submit a CCP ins tead o f a “claim,” or e ven that its Claim was first draf ted as a CCP . To the contra ry , Steel Service sent at lea st two letters to Hu n t t h at co n sistently ref err ed to a “ claim” a

nd invoked Article 4 of the Contrac t (ca ptioned “Disputes and Claims”) . This documentation was theNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 7
- - ba s is f o r CO # 1 an d w a s r e a d il y a v a il a b le to th e Co u n ty w h e n it dr a f te d an d e xe c u te d CO #1. Whatever the “g enesis” of Steel Service ’s Claim, the lang uag e o f C O # 1 clea rly shows that Steel Service actually

submitt ed, and the County acc epted, a

“cla im” and not a “ CCP .” Simonson’s statement quoted a

bove does not c ontradict the e x press a g ree ment of the pa rties, which is to be
asce rtained f

rom the languag e of the Contract itself (he re, CO #1)

. See Hamilt o n Ins. Serv s. v. Nationw ide Ins. Cos ., 714 N.E.2d 898, 901 (Ohio 1999)

. The County

also had the be nefit of the foreg oing doc umentation when it dra fted a nd executed CO #9 in Aug ust of 2003, one and a half y ear s after CO #1 was sig ned. I f the County had wa nted
or int e nd e d to se ttl e Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im, it c ou ld h a ve do ne so by sim ply dr a ft ingthe fo ur

th
se nte nc e to se ttl e the CCPs and Steel Service ’s Dec ember 2001 Claim. Acc ording ly , the County ’s argument does not chang e the analy sis set forth a bove, and doe s not support the conclusion that the Claim is actually

a CCP settl ed by

CO #9. The County also argues t hat “the trial court wa s corr ect in conc luding that the c laims St eel Service alleg ed we re ‘ intertwined with CCP’s’ a nd there fore rele ased throug h Chang e Or der N o. 9.” But its re liance on this ambiguous statement, which is unsuppor ted by any analy sis, is m i s p lace d. I n the first plac e, the County has misstated the district court’ s lang uag e. The court did not conc lude that Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s c lai ms we re int e rt wi ne d wi th CCPs
. I t de te rm ine d, ra the r, that “ Cha nge Or

de rs
ar e intertwined with the de ploy ment of Extraordinary

Measur es” a

nd that “the utilization of Ex traordina

ry Measur es is int er t wi n ed with CCPs .” (Empha sis added.) B ut even the c orre ct lang u ag e does not he lp the County beca use the Contrac t provisions that authorize Ex traordina ryNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 8

- - Measur es do not ref

er to COs or C CPs, nor do they set forth a

ny proce dures by

which Steel Servic e should seek compe nsation for its costs. I n contra st, pa

ragraph 4.7.1 sug g ests that Ex traordina ry Measur es ar e conne cted to claims

. Para g ra ph4. 7. 1 p ro vid e s tha t “[Ste e l Ser vic e ] sh a ll be e nti tle d to mak e a Cla im fo r an inc re a se in the Contract Time a

nd the Contract Sum for a ctual costs incur red by [S teel S ervic e] for r easons other than the fa ilure of [Steel Service ] to perf orm under its obligations under the Contrac t Documents.” Ac c or din g ly , c omp e ns a tio n f or c os ts r e latin g to E xtra or din ary Me a sure s w a s pr op e rl y so ug ht a s a claim under

Article 4 of

the Contract. 2. The third s entence of CO #9 Th e thi rd se nte nc e of

CO #9 e xpre ssl y

re se rv e s Ste e l Servi ce’s ri gh ts w ithre g ard to i ts Claim. I t states that both pa rties “expressly

rese rve a ny and all rig hts, claims , d e mand s, de fe ns e s, or causes of action which either may have under the Contract with re g ard to claims not settled by the Change Order Se ttlement .” (Empha sis added.) T he County ’s ar g ument that CO #9 settled Steel Service ’s Claim fails to give eff ect to thi s s en t en ce, a s Ohio law re quires. See A brams v. Siege l , 85 0 N. E. 2d 99 , 10 6 (O hio Ct. Ap p. 20 06 ). Th e c le ar a nd pla in l angua g e of

se nte nc e thr e e re fl e c ts the pa rt ie s’ un de rs tand ingthat CO #9 did no t se ttl e a ll o f t

he the n- ou tst and ingc la ims

. 3. The other sentences of CO #9 CO # 9 ’ s r e ma in in g s e n te n c e s a ls o f a il to s u p p o rt th e Co u n ty ’ s ar g u me n t. As alre ady discussed in Part I I .A.1. above, the Claim is not a CC P and there fore was not settled under sentenc e four. This only

leave s the possibili ty

that it wa s settled by sentenc es one or two. Both sente nces a re sim ila r i n tha t the y pr ov ide fo r a fu ll an d fin a l wa ive r of c la ims wi th re sp e c t to any and a ll c la ims ,No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 1 9

- - demands, a

nd cause s of ac tion that St eel Ser vice ha s arising out of “t h e C h an g es.” The word

“ Cha ng e s” is n ot d e fi ne d by the Con tr a c t, but in co nte xt se e ms to re fe r o nly to t he c ha ng e s li ste d in CO #9. We reac h this conclusion beca use the identica l lang uag e is found in COs #3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,

and tho se CO s c le a

rl y did no t se ttl e CO #1 . M or e ov e r, any in fere nc e that CO #9 wa s in te nd e d to
se ttl e Ste e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im is un derm ined by the fa c t th a t th e pa

rt ie s c ontin

ue d th e ir e ff or ts t o mediate the Claim eve n afte r CO #9 was e x ecute d. I n sum, Stee l Ser

vice’ s Claim a

rose out of Hunt’s instruction to employ E x t ra o rdinary Me a sure s, and

did no t ar ise ou t of a

ny CCPs lis te d in

CO #9 . St e e l Se rv ic e ’s Cla im w a s a c c or din g ly not settled by

CO #9, and the district court err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt f or the County

on that ba sis

. D. “ Pa s s -t h ro u g h ” s u b co n tr a ct o r c l a i ms The district cour

t also acc epted the County ’s char acte rization of Steel Service’ s claim for subcontrac tor costs as a “ pass-throug h” or “ sponsor ed ” cl ai m (which the pa rties ag ree is not prese ntly rec og nized under Ohio law) and held that Steel Service could not rec over the subcontrac tor costs it seeks. The district c ourt should not have rea ched this issue, howe ver, be cause it concluded that the County

was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt on the g roun d t hat CO #9 fully settled Steel Se rv ic e ’s C l a i m . A l t h o u g h w e d o n o td e c i d e t h i s i s s u e h e r e , w e b e l i e v e t h a tt h e C o u n t y ’ s pa ssthroug h-cla im arg ument require s further clar ification bec ause it will be proper ly befor e the district court on re mand. As discussed in Part I

above, the Contract mandates the traditional g ener al contra ctors u b c o n t r a c t o r

ar r an g e m e n tt h a ti s u t i l i z e d t h r o u g h o u tt h e A m e r i c anc o n s t r u c t i o ni n d

u s t r y.No. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 2 0

- - See 1-3 Construction L aw P. 3.01(1)( d) (B ender 2006). Unde r that ar

rang ement, the subc ontrac tors billed Steel Service for their costs, which S teel S ervic e in turn passed a long to the County toge ther wi th S te e l Se rv ic e ’s ow n c os ts. Ste e l Se rv ic e , in re tur n, is e nti tle d to c omp e ns a tio n f ro m th e County fo r t he re a so na

ble c os ts o f i ts s ub c on tr a c tor s, inc l u d i n g , in c e rt a in c ir c ums tanc e s, the su bc on tr a c tor s’ overhe ad and pr ofit. (Para g raphs 7.3.6.2, 7.3.10) The County is then expressly

obligated to pay

for costs incurre d by

Steel Service ’s subcontra ctors by remitting pa

y ment to them via Steel Service

. (Para g ra p h 9.3.6) This arr ang ement, althoug h g overne d by the terms of the Contract betwe en the County and Steel Servic e (in ad d i tion to the terms of the subcontra ct ag ree ments), cr eate s no contra ctual re lationship between a ny of the subcontr actor s and the County . (P ar agraph 1.1.2) Neve rth e le s s , th e Co u n ty is c o n tr a c tu a ll y o b li g a te d to p ay f o r c e rta in s u

b c o n tr a c to r c o s ts , and the Con tr a c t pr ov ide s a

me c ha nis m f or su c h p ay me nt. I n th i s c a s e , H u n t d i r e c t e d S t e e l S e r v i c e t o t a k e E xtr a o r d i n ar

y M e a s u r e s i n c o mp l e t i n g its work unde r the Contrac t, Stee l Ser vice’ s subcontrac tors wer e in turn re quired to do the same , and both Steel Service a

nd its subcontractors in cu rre d extra costs in undertakingsuch mea sures. The Con tr a c t a

pp e ars to co nte mpl a te su c h a sc e na ri o a nd to p e rm it— e ve n r e qu ir e —St e e l Se rv ic e to prese nt its costs, i nclu d i n g those incurr ed by its subcontractors, to the County for c ompensation. To be sure , a portion of Steel Ser vice’ s claimed c osts are attributable to subcontrac tor costs, and Steel Service is “passing them along ” to the County . But pa ssing a long such co s t s appears to be
e xpre ssl y pe rm itt e d b y

the Con tr a c t. I

nd e e d, the Cou

nty ’s ove rb ro a d a

rg ume nt w ou ld s e e m to p r e c lu d e St e e l S e r

v ic e f r o m e v e r s u b mi tt in g a

c la im f o r r e im b u r s e me n t o f

s u b c o n tr a c to r

c o s ts
. We there fore sug g est that the district court a sk the County to c larify the rea sons why it be lieves that SteelNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 2 1

- - Service ’s claim for subcontrac tor costs is not permitted by the t erms of the C ontrac t that g overn the
su bc on tr a c tin g arr ang e me nt. Fur thermore , Steel Service ’s complaint asser ts c laims a g ainst the County in Steel Service’ s own rig ht for bre ach of

contra ct, and not on beha lf of a subc ontrac tor. We theref ore also sugg est that the district court a sk the County to expl ain the basis on which it ar g ues that Steel Service is asserting “pass- throug h” cla ims rather than seeking to r eimburse itself for subcontrac tor costs incurr ed under the Con tr a c t. Finally , we f

ind puzz ling the County ’s reliance on the fact that Steel Service may have se ttled all cl ai m s with its s ubcontra ctors, and the related ar g ument that, beca use Steel Service has no
o u t s t an d i n g l i a

b i l i t i e s t o t h e m , S t e e l S e r

v i c e m ay n o tr e c o v e r s u

b c o n t r a c t o r c o s t s f

r o m t h e C o u n t y. That fa ct, if any

thing, would se em to lend support to the conclusion that Steel Service is not asserting
a ca use of a ction on behalf

of i ts subcontrac tors, but rather on its own behalf. That is, having be en paid for the ir costs, the subcontra ctors would h av e no basis for claiming damag es due to the County ’s a lle g e d b re a c h o f c on tr a c t. On re mand, the issue of w hat costs Steel Service may rec over und er t h e C o ntrac t will be pr op e rl y be fo re the dis tr ic t court . A nd wh e the r S te e l Se rv ic e may re c ov e r s ub c on tr a c tor

c os ts w ill
re qu i r e an i n qu i r

y i n t o w h e t h e r i t i s , i n f a c t , a s s e rt i n g a p a s s - t h r o u g h c l a i m o n b e h a lf of its
su bc on tr a c tor s or

sim ply se e kin g c omp e ns a tio n in

its ow n r ig ht a s g e ne ra l c on tr a c tor un de r t he te rm s of the Con tr a c t. E. Dam agesNo. 07-3251

Ste e l Se rv ic e Cor

p. v . B oa rd

of C ou nty Com mi ssi on e rs

- - 2 2

- - Be cause we a

re r ever sing the district court’s ju dg ment, we ne ed not addr ess the County ’s final ar g ument that Steel Service ’s damag es, if any , are limit ed to its “ac tual” costs allowe d under Parag raph 8.3.3.6. Tha

t issue, which was not prope rly befor e the district court to de cide in lig ht of its de termination that CO #9 fully settled Steel Service ’s Claim, can be appropr iately addre ssed on
rema nd.
III . C ON CL USI ON
For all of the re asons set for th above, we RE VE RSE the j u d g ment of the district cour t g ranting summary

judgme nt to the County

and RE MAND th e c a s e f

o r f u r the r proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion.