In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 11-492C

(Filed: September 23, 2019)

MERIDIAN ENGINEERING 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Post-remand decision on claims arising out of 

a contract for construction of a flood control 

project; accord and satisfaction; proper subject 

matter; inapplicability of releases to preclude 

relief; damages

Michael H. Payne, Cohen, Seglias, Pallas, Greenhall & Furman PC, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, for plaintiff. 

John H. Roberson, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the briefs 

were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., 

Director, and Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C.

OPINION AND ORDER

LETTOW, Senior Judge.

This contract case returns to the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit. The parties’ dispute relates to a contract between Meridian Engineering 

Company (“Meridian”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) for the 

construction of a flood control project in Nogales, Arizona, near the border with Mexico. 

Numerous issues arose during construction that ultimately led to the project’s suspension after 

partial completion. The parties’ disagreement over costs led Meridian to file suit at this court in 

2011 under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109.

The court conducted two trials, one held in 2014 and one in 2016, on the issues of 

liability and damages respectively. See Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 381 

(2015) (“Meridian I”) (liability); Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 147 (2016) 

(“Meridian II”) (damages). Following these two trials, the government was held to be liable on 

some counts of the complaint and Meridian was awarded damages in the amount of $983,771.10 

plus interest. Meridian II, 130 Fed. Cl. at 172. Meridian appealed from the final judgment. See
2

Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Meridian III”). The 

Federal Circuit considered numerous issues on appeal, resulting in a mixed disposition of partial 

affirmance, partial vacatur, partial reversal, and remand. See id. at 1367. Specifically of 

relevance now, the court vacated and remanded the court’s findings in Meridian I with respect to 

Meridian’s flood-events claim (“Count 4”) and Meridian’s unpaid contract-quantities claim 

(“Count 6”) and reversed and remanded this court’s interest award in Meridian II. See id. When 

the remanded case returned to this court, it was transferred from the originally assigned judge to 

the undersigned.

 

The sole issues remaining for the court are Count 4, as to both liability and damages, and 

the interest calculation.1

 For Count 4, this court was instructed on remand “to consider whether 

the parties reached a meeting of the minds on the flood event claims in light of all of the 

evidence.” Id. at 1365 (citation omitted). Separately, the Federal Circuit instructed this court “to 

enter the correct accrual date [for interest] as January 7, 2011, and recalculate the amount of 

interest in accordance with the correct accrual date.” Id. at 1354 n.2. A hearing was held on 

September 4, 2019 to consider these remaining issues. Additionally, the court has reviewed the 

documentary and testimonial evidence adduced and addressed at trial, and the case is now ready 

for disposition.

FACTS2

On September 21, 2007, the United States Army Corps of Engineers awarded Meridian, 

an engineering and construction firm based in Tucson, Arizona, a $5.8 million contract to 

undertake and construct a flood control project for the Chula Vista Channel in Nogales, Arizona.

JX193-1.3 During the beginning stages of the project, Meridian requested electronic drawings 

and survey files from the Corps on multiple occasions, but failed to receive them. See, e.g., 

JX110 at 3 (requesting drawings on Oct. 29, 2007); DX726 at 4 (requesting again on Nov. 14, 

2007); PX134 (explaining that the drawings had not yet been received as of Dec. 4, 2007). The 

drawings were sent by the Corps to Meridian on December 26, 2007. See JX110 at 9. Following 

receipt of the drawings, Meridian was able to commence construction in early January 2008. See

JX78 at 531. 

 1

As the case was being briefed on remand, the parties settled Count 6 and that Count was

voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and is no longer at issue. See Notice (Sept. 19, 2019), ECF 

No. 179 (payment of $225,000 received by Meridian in settlement of Count VI); Stipulation of 

Dismissal (Sept. 20, 2019) (ECF No. 180) (parties’ stipulation that Count VI be and is dismissed 

with prejudice).

2

The recitation of facts constitutes the court’s principal findings of fact in accord with 

Rule 52(a) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Other findings of fact and 

rulings on questions of mixed fact and law are set out in the analysis. A more complete recitation 

of facts is described in Meridian I. See 122 Fed. Cl. at 385-97.

3

Citations to plaintiff’s exhibits are identified as “PX___,” defendant’s exhibits are 

identified as “DX___,” and the parties’ joint exhibits are identified as “JX___.”
3

Initial construction continued steadily until February and March, 2008 when Meridian 

encountered subsurface flows and soil issues causing stability problems for construction. See, 

e.g., PX17; JX57. Meridian alerted the Corps to these issues, see JX57, and in response, the 

Corps issued additional requests for proposals, see, e.g., JX159, and modifications, see, e.g., 

JX118 (referencing modification R3).4 Problems continued to arise throughout the construction 

process, increasing the project’s scope and duration. See, e.g., PX146 at 1-6 (detailing the issues 

and revised project schedule). Additional modifications were issued by the Corps in the months 

following, including the addition of a new access ramp via Modification R6 on May 8, 2008, see

JX121, that increased the contract price and eventually led to schedule delays, see PX389 at 18-

19. Following further issues, the Corps issued a subsequent bilateral modification, modification 

R8, on June 5, 2008, which extended the schedule by twelve calendar days but deleted the 

additional work on the access ramp originally added in R6. See JX123. Modification R8 also 

included the following release language: “[T]his adjustment constitutes compensation in full on 

behalf of the Contractor . . . for all costs and markups directly or indirectly attributable for the 

change ordered, for all delays related thereto, for all extended overhead costs, and for 

performance of the change within the time frame stated.” JX123 at 2.

Further modifications were issued, see, e.g., JX125, as construction continued into late 

June 2008 to the point that concrete could be poured for the channel invert, see, e.g., JX78 at

167-69. Flooding of the work site, beginning about this same time, led to numerous delays in the 

work plan. See JX78 at 158 (“Work was stop[p]ed because of the flood and the damage[] that 

resulted from it. Additionally, Meridian is unable to proceed with their work plans for the 

weekend.”). This flooding continued to adversely affect progress on the worksite, with Meridian 

reporting incidents of continued flooding, including from July 6 to 11, 2008 and on July 14, 

2008, see PX56-61, and between August 3, 2008 and September 26, 2008, see PX62-102.

Specifically, during the latter dates, Meridian reported that the site experienced forty-seven days 

of flooding out of fifty-four. As a partial result of these weather delays, the Corps executed 

additional modifications to the construction plan, including modification R12 on September 4, 

2008, see JX127, modification R16 on September 9, 2008, see JX131, and modification R13 on 

September 12, 2008, see JX128, which extended the construction calendar collectively by thirtythree days. Subsequently, on September 15, 2008, the Corps and Meridian executed bilateral 

modification R17, which addressed cost increases and schedule delays due to the late delivery of 

the survey files to Meridian. See JX132. Just as in modification R8, all of these modifications 

included the same mutual release of liability. See, e.g., JX132 at 2.

Progress continued on the project in the months following, with, again, further 

modifications extending the project’s scheduled completion. See, e.g., JX135 (extending the 

schedule by five calendar days as of March 13, 2009 to account for weather delays from late 

2008). Due to the delays and structural failures, however, the Corps ultimately terminated the 

project in September 2009 following a final inspection. See JX49 at 12-14.

 4

The Modifications were referred to by the parties and in the documentation with various 

labels, e.g., “R3,” “R-3,” and R0003. For ease, the court will refer to all modifications by 

eliminating extraneous dashes and zeroes, e.g., “R3.”
4

Multiple disputes between the parties over costs remained. On August 24, 2009,

Meridian submitted a final payment request to the Corps, which was eventually rejected. See 

DX572. With these disputes still outstanding, the Corps circulated internally, but never issued, a 

draft modification R33 that would have responded to Meridian’s requests for equitable 

adjustments (“REA”) regarding flood events during the 2008 monsoon season as well as subsurface water flows. PX377 at 3. The draft specifically noted that, “subsurface water is an 

unpredictable element which led to delays giving partial merit to the flood REA by causing the 

contractor to be working on the channel in the early monsoon events.” PX377 at 8. At the time, 

Meridian was unaware of this draft modification. See Meridian I, 122 Fed. Cl. at 411. With no 

resolution of its claims, Meridian then submitted a Consolidated Request for Equitable 

Adjustment (“consolidated REA”) to the Corps on April 2, 2010 which contained fourteen 

counts of requests for equitable adjustment. JX177 at 1. The fourth count (“REA 4”) was a 

claim for $899,600.88 for “flood events.” JX17 at 17. On May 20, 2010, the Corps

acknowledged receipt of the consolidated REA and stated its intent to issue a decision by 

November 30, 2010. JX189. After no decision was rendered, Meridian converted the 

consolidated REA into a certified claim on January 7, 2011. JX33 at 1.

Again, no decision was issued by the Corps, and Meridian brought suit in this court 

alleging a right to relief under the CDA. In Meridian I, the court concluded that Meridian’s 

claim was deemed denied on March 7, 2011. Meridian I, 122 Fed. Cl. at 399; see 41 U.S.C. § 

7103(f)(5). All fourteen counts were considered by the court in Meridian I, with the court ruling 

that “the [Corps] did not breach the September 21, 2007 Contract, as alleged in Counts 1-6 and 

10-13 of the May 19, 2014 Second Amended Complaint, or the implied duty of good faith and 

fair dealing, as alleged in Count 14 . . . .” 122 Fed. Cl. at 426. Counts 7-9 remained at issue until 

Meridian II,

5 where the court found that Meridian was entitled to an equitable adjustment of 

$983,771.10, plus interest accruing from January 7, 2014 until date of payment. 130 Fed. Cl. at 

172. 

Meridian subsequently appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit in Meridian III. 885 

F.3d 1351. On appeal, Meridian pursued its claims against the government on all fourteen 

counts, and, additionally, it contended that the accrual date for interest as found in Meridian II

was incorrect. See id. at 1353-54. The government conceded liability for Counts 7-9, see id. at 

1354, and both parties agreed that the proper starting date for interest accrual should be January 

7, 2011, see id. at 1354 n.2.

6 As to Counts 1-6 and 10-14, the Federal Circuit vacated and 

remanded the decision of the court in Meridian I for Counts 4 and 6, and affirmed the dismissal 

of the other Counts from the Meridian I decision. See id. at 1367. Because the parties have 

reached a settlement as to Count 6, and that Count has been dismissed, see supra, at 2 n.1, only 

Count 4 remains in dispute on remand.

Regarding Count 4 concerning flood events, the Federal Circuit concluded that the 

court’s analysis in Meridian I was insufficient. Id. at 1362. In Meridian I, the court had ruled

 5

Count 7 concerned “Suspension of work,” Count 8 related to “Channel Fill,” and Count 

9 was based on “Interest Protection.” See Meridian III, 885 F.3d at 1354.

6

The court today adjusts the proper interest accrual date. See infra, at 9.
5

that Meridian’s claim was barred by the defense of accord and satisfaction due to the releases

present in both modification R8 and modification R17. 122 Fed. Cl. at 411-12. Meridian had 

argued that the parties continued to consider the flood-damage claim despite the releases, such 

that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as required for accord and 

satisfaction. Id. at 412. In support of this contention, Meridian argued that the draft modification 

R33 included the Corps’ estimate of money owed by the Corps to Meridian for flood damage. Id.

Nonetheless, the court had concluded in Meridian I that because Meridian was unaware of the 

draft modification R33 prior to discovery, the releases in R8 and R17 were effective to preclude 

the claim. Id.

In vacating and remanding that decision, the Federal Circuit clarified on appeal that the 

standard for acceptance vel non of a claim when presented with an accord and satisfaction 

defense does not require evidence of proposed modifications negotiated between the parties. 

Meridian III, 885 F.3d at 1364. Instead, as the court noted, “Our precedent on the meeting of the 

minds inquiry accepts a wide range of evidence in its fact-specific consideration” of meeting of 

the minds, id. at 1365, and particularly that it was necessary to take into account “additional 

evidence on record showing that the [g]overnment directed Meridian to submit revised estimates 

for the flood claim on multiple occasions after the execution of the bilateral modifications [that 

contained the releases],” id. at 1364. The court of appeals also questioned whether the “subject 

matter” of the releases applied to the flood-damage claim, i.e., whether “the subject matter of the 

modification [and attendant release] is the same as that of the disputed claim.” Id. at 1364 n.12. 

Consequently, the court ordered that “[o]n remand, the Court of Federal Claims shall consider 

meeting of the minds and proper subject matter.” Id.

STANDARDS FOR DECISION

Accord and satisfaction refers to the “discharge [of a claim] by the rendering of some 

performance different from that which was claimed as due and the acceptance of such substituted 

performance by the claimant as full satisfaction of his claim.” Brock & Blevins Co. v. United 

States, 343 F.2d 951, 955 (Ct. Cl. 1965) (quoting 6 Corbin, Contracts § 1276 (1962)). To 

establish the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, four elements must be present: “(1) 

proper subject matter; (2) competent parties; (3) a meeting of the minds of the parties; and (4) 

consideration.” Holland v. United States, 621 F.3d 1366, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 

O’Connor v. United States, 308 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corp. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 657, 674 (2012).

ANALYSIS

I. Count 4: Flood Event Liability

The court is first charged on remand with determining whether the government is liable 

to Meridian for flood-event damages suffered during the 2008 monsoon season. Meridian argues 

that it is entitled to recover damages in connection with the flood events in a total of 

$921,620.69, plus interest. Pl.’s Br. on Remand (“Pl.’s Br.”) at 16, ECF No. 157. In opposition, 

the government asserts that this claim should be barred under the defense of accord and 

satisfaction, or alternatively, that the contract assigned the risk of flooding to Meridian. Def.’s 
6

Resp. to Pl.’s Br. on Remand (“Def.’s Opp’n”) at 18, 31, ECF No. 172. Because the court 

concludes that the government’s arguments of accord and satisfaction and assignment of risk are 

unconvincing, the court finds the government liable for flood-event damages under Count 4.

A. Accord and Satisfaction

Two of the necessary elements for accord and satisfaction are in dispute in this case: (1) 

what the proper subject matter of the releases are; and (2) whether the parties came to a meeting 

of the minds on the scope of the releases. After addressing the issue of the proper subject matter 

of the releases in modification R8 and modification R17, the court will examine whether the 

parties came to a meeting of the minds that the releases set out in those modifications

“constituted full and complete satisfaction of all obligations and liabilities,” Holland, 621 F.3d at 

1383, for all flood-events claims. 

1. Proper subject matter.

At issue is whether the release language from modifications R8 and R17 encompasses 

Meridian’s claims for flood-event damages. Both modification R8, dated June 5, 2008, and 

modification R17, dated September 15, 2008, contain the same mutual release of liability. The 

specific text is: 

It is understood and agreed that pursuant to the above, the contract time is 

extended the number of calendar days stated, and the contract price is increased as 

indicated above, which reflects all credits due the Government and all debits due 

the Contractor. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes 

compensation in full on behalf of the Contractor and its Subcontractors and 

Suppliers for all costs and markups directly or indirectly attributable for the 

change ordered, for all delays related thereto, for all extended overhead costs, and 

for performance of the change within the time frame stated.

JX123 at 2; JX132 at 2. Modification R8 was specifically described as “a definitization of 

modification R00006,” JX123 at 2, which had added the new access ramp, while modification 

R17 addressed “delay as it pertains to project drawings and survey issues,” JX132 at 2.

Meridian argues that each of these releases speaks only to specific costs associated with 

the explicit purposes listed in the modifications, that is, the costs of the new access ramp and the 

survey drawing delays. See Pl.’s Br. at 22. The government, on the other hand, suggests a 

broader reading of the release language that would include the release of all flood-event damage 

claims, past and future, arguing that these are encompassed within the related-costs language of 

the release. See Def.’s Opp’n at 25-26. The court agrees with Meridian.

While the release language specifies release for “all costs and markups directly or 

indirectly attributable for the change ordered” and “for all delays related thereto,” see JX123 at 

2; JX132 at 2, flood-event damage claims arising in the future are simply too attenuated from the 

access ramp and survey delays to be within the subject matter of these releases. Notably, the 
7

execution dates of both of the modifications, but particularly that of R8, pre-date a significant 

portion of the days when the site experienced flooding. See id.; see also PX62-102 (noting 

significant flooding at the work site between August 3, 2008 and September 26, 2008); Hr’g Tr. 

10:4-7 (Sept. 4, 2019) (“There were approximately 14 flood events during that monsoon season 

of 2008 and they occurred between June 27th and December 19th of 2008.”). The releases do not 

explicitly cover flood damage that had not yet occurred and whose scope was not predicted. 

In support of its position, the government argues that the flood-event damage was 

suffered as at least an indirect result of the delays incurred from these modifications, R8 and 

R17, because these delays forced Meridian to work during the area’s extended monsoon season, 

the ultimate cause of the site’s flooding. Def.’s Opp’n at 27. This argument, however, is 

unconvincing. The project’s overall progress in 2008 was slowed as a result of numerous causes, 

including additional modifications to the scope of the work and differing site conditions such as 

sub-surface water flows and softer-than-anticipated soils. Thus, no accurate line of causation can 

be drawn between the two causes of delay at issue here, the definitization of the new access ramp 

and the survey delays, and the several other incidents and modifications which delayed the 

project and pushed completion of the crucial channel invert work into monsoon season.

The facts at hand can also be distinguished from those of the cases the government uses 

to support its broad reading of the release language at issue. For example, in King Fisher Marine 

Serv., Inc. v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 231 (1989), while the court did find that the release 

language barred all claims arising from a FO-2 change order, ultimately, the court limited its 

reading of the language by applying the notion that “King Fisher’s entire claim is based on the 

FO-2 change order.” Id. at 237. Here, unlike in King Fisher, the claim for flood-event damages 

is not obviously within the purview of either the ramp access or the survey delays specifically 

addressed by the modifications. Contrastingly, as with King Fisher, in John Massman 

Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24 (1991), the claims brought by the plaintiff were 

for compensation resulting from schedule extensions due to modifications that included release 

language similar to that at issue here, see id. at 28, but the money sought by Massman was for 

delays and damages that were explicitly encompassed by the subject matter of the modifications. 

For example, Massman sought damages and costs from high river flows; modification P10, 

which contained the release language, “granted plaintiff a 295 calendar day extension because of 

high river flows.” Id. at 27-28 (emphasis added). Again, modifications R8 and R17 related to an 

access ramp and survey delays, not flood-event damages. Accordingly, the connection between 

the claim and the explicit subject of the release does not correlate as it did in King Fisher and

Massman.

2. Meeting of the minds.

Although the court today finds that flood-event damages are not encompassed within the 

subject matter of the R8 and R17 releases, the court also concludes that the defense of accord and 

satisfaction is barred here because it finds there was no meeting of the minds between the parties 

as to the flood-event damages claim. As explained by the Federal Circuit in Community 

Heating, “[C]ourts may refuse to bar a claim based upon the defense of accord and satisfaction 

where the parties continue to consider the claim after execution of a release” because this 

conduct is evidence that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties that the release 
8

language would constitute an abandonment of the plaintiff’s earlier claim. See Community

Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Kelso, 987 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing WinnSenter Constr. Co. v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 255 (Ct. Cl. 1948)). Ultimately, the court 

concludes today that there was no meeting of the minds here because the flood-event damages 

claim continued to be negotiated after the releases were issued, as evidenced by draft 

modification R33, the government’s request for and Meridian’s subsequent submission of an 

REA including a claim for flood events, and the government’s subsequent consideration of that 

REA. See, e.g., Community Heating, 987 F.2d at 1581 (emphasizing that the Navy continued to 

negotiate and audit the claims thereby barring an accord and satisfaction defense); A & K 

Plumbing & Mech., Inc. v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 716, 723 (1983), aff’d, 795 F.2d 1011 (Fed. 

Cir. 1986) (concluding that each party’s consideration of the merits of the claim required that the 

release not be construed as a bar to plaintiff’s claim). 

In this case, there is evidence that both parties considered the merits of the flood-event 

damages claim after the execution of modifications R8 and R17. Following the execution of the 

modifications, in June and September 2008 respectively, Meridian sent a letter to the Corps 

requesting equitable compensation for flood-event damage. See PX377 at 7 (referencing an REA 

sent on December 22, 2008 regarding flood damage on site). The Corps responded to this REA 

with a letter, dated January 22, 2009, finding that after an initial consideration on the merits, it 

found no merit. Def.’s Opp’n, Ex. B at 1. Meridian, still seeking final resolution on its floodevents REA in addition to others, filed a consolidated REA on April 2, 2010, see JX177, with the 

Corps, responding to their request to do so, id.; see also Hr’g Tr. 857:18-858:12 (Jan. 29, 2014). 

In August 2010, the Corps internally circulated draft modification R33, which noted that the 

Corps’ initial response to the flood REA came with “a request for additional information” from 

Meridian, and noted that the flood REA now garnered “partial merit.” P377 at 7-8. While this 

modification was never issued, and although Meridian did not learn of this document until 

discovery was had in this case, the draft of this document and its internal circulation are enough 

to show continued consideration by the Corps of Meridian’s claim. 

Further in support of this conclusion, the Corps responded to the consolidated REA, 

which contained the renewed REA for flood events, with a letter on May 20, 2010, 

acknowledging the receipt of the REAs and committing to issue a final decision by November 

30, 2010 on the claims. See JX189. The record, therefore, contains sufficient evidence that there 

was no “intent on the part of either party that the release[s] ha[d] [the] effect” of barring the 

plaintiff’s claims. A & K Plumbing, 1 Cl. Ct. at 723.

II. Assumption of Risk

The government alternatively suggests that that Meridian’s claim for flood-event 

damages fails because the contract assigned the risk of flooding on the site to Meridian. Def.’s 

Opp’n at 31. This argument is attended by irony—in one sense, the government seeks to suggest 

that the flood-events damage directly resulted from the delays caused by modifications R8 and 

R17 (thus seeking to put them within the release language), and yet also suggests that the flood 

damage from monsoon season was the sheer result of poor planning on Meridian’s part. See

Def.’s Opp’n at 31-34 (“Meridian’s flood[-]event damages claim also fails because Meridian 

chose to work in the river channel during monsoon season.”). The government’s argument is 
9

unavailing. Meridian’s initial construction schedule planned for a completion of the channel 

invert work, a necessary step in protecting the site from flooding, to be completed by late June

2008. See Pl.’s Br. at 16-17; Hr’g Tr. 8:3-7 (Sept. 4, 2019). As previously noted, many issues 

arose in the project’s early stages that led to cumulative substantial delay, including those caused 

by the government’s failure timely to provide the survey files. These delays, in turn, pushed the 

channel invert work’s completion well into monsoon season. The government cannot now claim 

that Meridian assumed the risk of flooding from monsoon season when the government was 

largely responsible for Meridian’s inability to complete the project prior to the beginning of 

monsoon season. See, e.g., Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. United States, 528 F.2d 1392, 

1398-99 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (finding that government-caused delays which pushed the contractor to 

work during heavy rainfall were compensable). Simply put, the government cannot escape 

liability for flood damages when the government is responsible for causing the contractor to be 

working during the flood-prone season.

III. Count 4: Flood-Event Damages

Because the court concluded in Meridian I that the government was not liable to 

Meridian for flood-event damages, see 122 Fed. Cl. at 412, the court never addressed the issue of 

damages for Count 4 in Meridian II, see 130 Fed. Cl. at 172. The court today finds the 

government liable for flood-event damages under Count 4. Therefore, the court must determine 

the proper amount due.

Meridian, on remand, sought damages in the amount of $921,620.69, plus interest. Pl.’s 

Br. at 16. The government disputed $48,017 of this sum, arguing for damages in the amount of 

$873,603.69, plus interest. See Joint Stipulations of Fact (“Joint Stip.”) at 85, ECF No. 141. 

Meridian has now conceded and agrees to the government damages calculation of $873,603.69, 

plus interest. Hr’g Tr. 58:16-25; 59:9-15 (Sept. 4, 2019). Therefore, the court finds that

Meridian is entitled to damages for flood events under Count 4 in that amount.

IV. Interest Calculation: Counts 4, 7-9

On remand, this court has also been charged with recalculating the damages based on the 

proper interest accrual starting date. Meridian III, 885 F.3d at 1354 n.2. This interest must be recalculated with regard to Counts 7-9 in accordance with the damages awarded in Meridian II,

and calculated now for the first time with regard to Count 4. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a), Meridian is entitled to interest on both of its claims. 

Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7109(b), “[i]nterest shall accrue and be paid at a rate which the Secretary 

of the Treasury shall specify as applicable for each successive 6-month period.” As noted in 

Meridian III, the proper interest accrual start date is January 7, 2011, 885 F.3d at 1354 n.2, not 

January 7, 2014 as originally stated in Meridian II, 130 Fed. Cl. at 171. The applicable interest 

rates, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury for the periods at issue are as follows:

(1) January 7, 2011-June 30, 2011: 2.625%. 75 Fed. Reg. 82,146 (Dec. 29, 2010). 

(2) July 1, 2011-December 31, 2011: 2.5%. 76 Fed. Reg. 38,742-43 (July 1, 2011).
10

(3) January 1, 2012-June 30, 2012: 2.0%. 76 Fed. Reg. 82,350 (Dec. 30, 2011).

(4) July 1, 2012-December 31, 2012: 1.75%. 77 Fed. Reg. 38,888 (June 29, 2012).

(5) January 1, 2013-June 30, 2013: 1.375%. 77 Fed. Reg. 76,624 (Dec. 28, 2012).

(6) July 1, 2013-December 31, 2013: 1.75%. 78 Fed. Reg. 39,063 (June 28, 2013).

(7) January 1, 2014-June 30, 2014: 2.125%. 79 Fed. Reg. 424 (Jan. 3, 2014).

(8) July 1, 2014-December 31, 2014: 2.0%. 79 Fed. Reg. 37,391 (July 1, 2014).

(9) January 1, 2015-June 30, 2015: 2.125%. 79 Fed. Reg. 78,950-51 (Dec. 31, 2014). 

(10)July 1, 2015-December 31, 2015: 2.375%. 80 Fed. Reg. 39,482-83 (Jan. 9, 2015).

(11)January 1, 2016-June 30, 2016: 2.5%. 80 Fed. Reg. 81,880 (Dec. 31, 2015).

(12)July 1, 2016-December 31, 2016: 1.875%. 81 Fed. Reg. 44,088 (July 6, 2016).

(13)January 1, 2017-June 30, 2017: 2.5%. 82 Fed. Reg. 910 (Jan. 4, 2017).

(14)July 1, 2017-December 31, 2017: 2.375%. 82 Fed. Reg. 34,348 (July 24, 2017).

(15)January 1, 2018-June 30, 2018: 2.625%. 83 Fed. Reg. 3,052 (Jan. 22, 2018).

(16)July 1, 2018-December 31, 2018: 3.5%. 83 Fed. Reg. 47,970 (Sept. 21, 2018).

(17)January 1, 2019-June 30, 2019: 3.625%. Bureau of the Fiscal Serv., Interest Rates, 

Prompt Payment, https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/prompt-payment/rates.html (last visited 

Sept. 16, 2019). 

(18)July 1, 2019-September 19, 2019: 2.625%. Bureau of the Fiscal Serv., Interest Rates, 

Prompt Payment, https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/prompt-payment/rates.html (last visited 

Sept. 16, 2019).

Further interest will be due at the rate specified by the Treasury until the judgment has been paid.

Meridian was awarded pre-interest damages of $983,771.10 in Meridian II, 130 Fed. Cl. 

at 171, and has today been awarded pre-interest damages of $873,603.69, for a total of 

$1,857,374.79. Meridian is entitled to simple interest on this total amount. 42 C.F.R. § 52.233-

1(h). Simple interest is calculated with the formula I=Prt, where “I” is the interest, “P” is the 

principal, “r” is the interest rate, and “t” is the unit of time. As of September 19, 2019, the 

government owes a total of $377,982.13 in interest. The following table contains a more detailed 

calculation:
11

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the court finds the government liable to Meridian for Count 4, 

flood-event damages. Pursuant to Meridian III, the government is also liable for Count 7, 

suspension of work, Count 8, channel fill, and Count 9, interest protection. See 885 F.3d at 

1354. Meridian is entitled to damages in the amount of $873,603.69 for Count 4 and $983,771.10 

for Counts 7-9, totaling to damages in the amount of $1,857,374.79, plus interest, pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. § 7109(b). Interest will accrue from January 7, 2011 until the date of payment. As of 

September 19, 2019, the government owed Meridian $377,982.13 in interest. The clerk is 

directed to enter final judgment in accord with this disposition.

No costs.

It is so ORDERED.

s/ Charles F. Lettow

Charles F. Lettow

Senior Judge