## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 3 -8 5 9 C (Fi l edJ u l y

2 1 , 2 0 1 6 )
UNPUBLI SHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * M AGNUS PACIFIC CORP.,

Pla i n t if f ,

v
. THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d an t

. * * * * * * * * * * M o ti o n In Li mi n e ; Rel ev an ce o f Ex pert Op i ni o n ; Sco p e o f CDA Cl ai m
.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Da n iel L. Baxt er , Sacram en t o , CA, fo r p l ai n t i ff.
A. Bo nd u r a n t El ey , Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en t o f J us t i ce, wi th wh o m were Ben ja mi n C. Mi

z er , Pri n ci p al Dep u ty

As si s t an tAt t o rn ey

Gen eral , Ro b er t

E. Ki r s ch ma n , Jr

. , Di rect o r, M

a r t i n F. Ho ckey, Jr

. , As s is tan tDi rect o r, Ret a E. Bez a k , Tri al At t orn ey , W as h i n g t o n, DC, fo r d efen d an t

.

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

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Bus h , S en i o r Ju d ge . On J u ne 1 0 , 2 01 6 d efen dan tfi l ed a Ren ewedM o t i o n In Li m i n e t o Ex cl u d e t h e Ex p ertTes t i m o n y

o f Ch am p Cl arkan dPo rt i o ns o f t h e Ex p ertRep ortan d Tes t i m o n y

o f Geo rg e Si l l s . Th i s m o t i o n h as b een fu l l y b ri efedo n an ex p ed i t edb as i s
. S

ee Ord er o f J un e 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 . Th e co u rtal so s o l i ci t edo ral arg um en to n th e m o ti o n
. S

ee Ord er o f J u n e 2 8, 2 0 1 6 . Defen d an t ’ s m o t i o n req u es t s th at t h e co u rt ex cl u d e t h e en t i ret y

o f t h e “ i n t en d edex p ertt es t i m o n y ” o f M r. Cl arkfro m th e ev i d en ce t o b e co ns i dered i n t h i s m at ter, an dex cl u de a s i gn i fi can tp o rt io n o f M r. Si l l s ’ ex p ert rep o rtan dp ro p o s edt es t i m o n y
. Def.’ s M o t

. at2 . Al t h o ug h a v ery s i m i l ar m o ti o n was d en i ed in i t s en t i ret y o n Decem

b er 2 2 , 2 0 1 5 , l arg el y

b ecau s e t h e d i s p u t e was n o tfu ll y

d ev el o p edatth att i m e, t h e co urtn o w g ran ts d efen d an t ’ s ren ewedm o t i on i n l i mi n e , i n p art

. 1
Th e g o v ern m en t ’ s ch al l en g e t o t h e ex p ert t es t i m o n y o f M r. Cl arkan dM r. Si l l s , an d t o t h e co n t en to f M r. Si l l s ’ ex pert rep o rt , i s fu n d am en t al l y a rel ev an ce ch al l en g e. Th e rel i ab i l i t y o f p lai n t i ff’ s ex pert s i s n o tch al l en ged

. Cf

. Ku mh o Ti r e Co . v. Ca rmi ch a el , 5 2 6 U.S. 1 37 , 1 4 1 (1 9 9 9) (s t at i n g t h atex p ert“ t es t i m o n y i s ad m i s s i b l e o n l y i f i ti s b o t h rel ev an tan d rel i ab l e” (ci t i ng Da u b er t v. Mer r el l Do w Ph a rms ., In c. , 5 0 9 U.S. 5 7 9 (1 9 9 3 ))). In p art i cu l ar, d efen d an ts u g g es t s th atth e ch al l en g edex p ert o p i n i o n s “ h av e n o n ex u s t o the cert i fi edcl ai m s an dco n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s i o n s th ates t ab l i s h th e ju ri s d ict i o n al b as i s fo r t h i s l aws u i t .” Def.’ s M o t . at2

. It i s al s o i m p ort an tt o n o t e t hatth i s ev i d en t i ary d i sp u te co n cern s o n l y tw o o f t h e t h ree co n t ract i n g o ffi cer (CO) fi n al d eci si o n s t h atu n derl i e t h i s s u i t ari s in g fro m

a l ev ee res t orat i o n p ro

jecti n Tex as

–

d eci s i o n s o n t h e ‘ em

b an km en t fi ll cl ai m ’ an dth e ‘ ri p rap cl ai m .’ 2
BACKGROUND
Th i s i s a s ui t b ro u g h t u n d er t h e Co n t ract Di s p u t es Act o f 1 97 8 , 4 1 U.S.C. § § 7 1 0 1 -7 1 0 9 (2 0 1 2) (CDA). Am . Co m p l . ¶¶ 1 5, 2 0

. Th e p art i es ag ree t h ati n 2 0 1 0 p l ai n t i ff an dth e Un it edSt at es Sect i o n o f t h e In t ern at io n al Bo un d ary an d W at er Co m

m i s s i o n (Co m

m i s s i o n o r IBW C) en t ered i n t o a “ l u m p-s u m ” co n t ract wh ereb y M ag n u s Paci fi c Co rp o rat i o n (M ag n us o r M ag n u s Paci fi c) wo u l dp erfo rm res t orat i o n wo rk

o n a l ev ee n ear Pres i d i o , Tex as
. Id

. ¶ 5 ; Def.’ s M o t. at1 ; Pl .’ s

1 / B ackground information reg ardingthis dispute is discussed in the court’s Order of December 22, 2015; familiarity with that order is assumed. Only the facts most relevant to defendant’s evidentiary

objections are recounted here.

2 / According to the amended complaint, “[ e] mbankment fill is earthen material used to assist in supporting the impermeability of a levee [ and] [ r] iprap is rock or similar material used to armor shorelines, streambeds, and levees.” Am. Compl. at 2 n.1. 2Res p. Ex . 1 , at 1 . Th e t w o cl ai m s i n th e am en d edco m p l ai ntwh i ch are ad d res s ed i n p l ai nt i ff’ s d i s p u t edex p ertt es t i m o n y are s u m m ari zedd i fferen t l y

b y the p art i es , al t h o u g h t h e d i fferen ces are n o tm at eri al t o th e i s su es b efo re t h e co u rtatthi s t i m e. Th e em b an km en t fi ll cl ai m i s d es cri b edb y d efen d an tas a cl ai m

fo r “ $ 3 ,1 86 ,2 1 2 fo r t h e rem o val an drep l acem en to f al l eg ed l y u n su i t ab l e fi l l m at eri al th atM ag n u s cl ai m s t o h av e d is co v ered u n ex p ect ed l y i n the l ev ee s ub g rad e.” Def.’ s M ot . at1

. Th e ri p rap cl ai m

i s d es cri b edas a cl ai m

fo r “ $ 6 0 7 ,5 7 5 i n co n n ect io n wi t h s up p ly i n g an dp laci n g ri prap o n th e l ev ee.” Id

. Pl ai nt i ff co l l ect i v el y d es cri b es t h es e t w o cl ai m s as

cl ai m s [wh i ch ] ari s e o u to f t he Go v ern m en t ’ s d i rect i v e fo r M ag n u s Paci fi c t o rem ov e an drep lace em b an km en t fi l l m at eri al an d ri p rap m at eri al , res pect i v el y , wh i ch rem o v al an drep l acem en twas (a) n o ti n cl ud ed wi t h in t h e s co p e o f wo rk cal l ed fo r b y th e u n d erl y i n g co n t ract d o cu m en t s , an d(b ) n ev er co m pen s at edb y

th e Go v ern m en td es p i t e rep eat edas su ran ces th ats u ch p aym en two u l db e fo rt h co m i ng
. Pl .’ s Res p . Ex . 1 , at1

. DI SCUSSI ON
Defen d an tco n t en d s th atth e ch al l en g edex p erto pi n i o n s “p res en ta g rab b ag o f al l eg at i o n s th ath av e n o co n n ect i o n t o th e m at t ers th atM ag n us ev er p u t ati s s u e i n the cert i fi edcl ai m s th ati ts ub m i t t edt o th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, an dth at M ag n u s h as n o w i d en t i fi edas th e s ub jectm at t er o f th is t ri al .” Def.’ s M o t . at6 . In o t h er wo rd s , acco rd i n g t o t h e g o v ern m en t“ t h e ch al l en gedev i d en ce i s wh ol l y i rrel ev an tt o th e s ub

ject m at t er o f t h e cert i fi edcl ai m s an d co nt ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi nal deci s i o n s , an daffi rm at i v el y s eek s t o en co u rag e th is Co u rtt o d eci d e t h i s cas e o n an i m

pro p er b as is , i .e. , a b as i s o t h er t h anwh atwas p res en t edt o th e co n tract in g o ffi cer fo r d eci s i o n .” Def.’ s Rep ly at4 . Pl ai n t i ff res p o n ds thati t s ex p ert s o ffer o p in i o n s rel ev an tt o M ag nu s Paci fi c’ s co n t en t i on th at “ t he p ro ject s o l i ci t at i on d o cu m en ts i s s u edb y th e IBW C were i nad eq u at e t o p l ace a reas o n ab l e b i d d er o n n o t i ce o f t h e act u al co n d i t i o n s at t en d i n g t o th e Lo wer Reach p ro ject .” Pl .’ s Su r-Rep l y

at2 (ci t in g Ra nd

a/ Ma diso n Jo in t

Ven t u r e III v. Da h l ber

g , 2 3 9 F.3 d1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 9 -[7 7] (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 1 )). Pl ai n t iff al so arg u es th at i t s ex p ert s ’

3t es t i m o ny

i s rel ev an tt o “ E s t ab l i s h i n g th at M ag n u s Paci fi c[’ s ] Perfo rm an ce o f Ad d i t i o n al W o rkW as Au t ho ri zedan dDi rect edb y th e Go v ern m en t .” Id

. at4

. Th e d i sp u t e b efo re th e co u rtfo cu ses o n a o n e-p ag e s u m m ary o f s ev en ex p erto p i n i o n s o f M r. Cl arkan do n tw en t y -ei g h to p in io n s ex p res s edb y M r. Si l l s t h ro u g h ou th i s ex p ertrep o rt

. S ee Def.’ s M o t . at6 -9 , Co rrect edAp p . at2

. Defen d an th as al s o p ro p o s eda “ red -l i n ed ” v ers i o n o f M r. Si l ls ’ ex p ertrep o rt wh i ch at tem

p t s t o ex ci s e i rrel ev an t o p i n i o n
. S ee i d

. Co rrect edAp p. Tab 2 . Th e co u rtwi l l retu rn t o t h es e ex p erto p i n io n s , b u tb eg i n s i t s an al y s is b y ad d res s i n g th e cert ifi edcl ai m s p res en t edt o t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer wh i ch d efi n e th e p erm i s s i b l e s co p e o f p l ai nt i ff’ s CDA cl ai m s b efo re t h i s co u rt

. I . Sco pe o f Pl a i nti ff’s Em ba nk m ent Fi l l a nd Ri pra p Cl a i m s A. Em ba nk m ent Fi l l Cl a i m 1
. The Certi fi ed Cl a i m a nd CO’s Fi na l Deci si o n As o f Oct o ber 1 9 , 2 0 1 2, t h e t i t l e o f t h e em b an km en tfi l l cert i fi edcl ai m was
“ Req u es tfo r Ch an g e Ord er – Rem o v al o f Un s u it ab le Lev ee Fi l l an d Pl acem en to f Ad d i t i o n al Em

b an km en tFi l l.” Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect edAp p . at5 6 . Sub s eq u en t l y , as o f J u n e 4 , 2 0 13 , th e t i t le o f t h e cl ai m was ch an gedt o “ Req u es tfo r a Ch an g e Ord er fo r t h e Rem o v al o f Un s u i t ab l e Em ban km en tFi l l , Tru ck i n g an dDi s p o s al o f Sl u rry W al l W o rk

p adDeg rad e M at eri al an dIm p o rtan d Tru ck i n g o f Sl u rry W al l W o rk p adEm b an km en tFi l l d at edOct o b er 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 .” Id

. at5 5. Th e am o u n t req u es t edb y

M ag nu s t o b e i ncl u d edi n th e ch an g e o rd er was $ 3 ,1 8 6,2 1 2 . Am

. Co m p l . ¶ 1 0 . Th e cert i fi edcl ai m s p eci fi cal l y

m en t i o n edth e t erm “ di fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n ,” Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect edAp p . at5 8 , an d t h u s i nv o kedreco v ery u n d er t h e
“ Di fferi n g Si t e Co nd it i o n s ” cl au s e o f t h e co n t ract , i d

. at3 1 5 , an dcas el aw rel ev an t t o that t h eo ry

o f reco v ery
. Th ere was n o m en t i o n o f an i m p l i ed -i n -factco n t ract o r o f an o ral co n t ract i n t h e em b an km en tfi ll cert i fi edcl ai m . Th ere was al s o n o art i cu l at i o n o f a d efect i v e d es i g n cl ai m

o r a d efect i v e p l an s an ds peci fi cat i o ns cl ai m i n the em b an km en tfi ll cert ifi edcl ai m . Th ere was , h o wev er, an al l eg at i o n t h atth e wo rk en co m p as s edi n t h e em b an km en tfi ll cert i fi edcl ai m was “ no ta co n t ractreq u i rem en t .” Def.’ s M ot

. Co rrect edAp p . at5 8

.
4Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi nal d eci s i o n o n th e em b an km en t fi l l cert i fi ed cl ai m d en i edthe cl ai m

i n i t s en t i ret y . Def.’ s M o t. Co rrect edAp p. at2 0 8 . Th e CO d i dn o t affi rm

o r d en y t h at Mag n us en co u n tered a d i fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n
. In s t ead , t h e CO fo u n dfau l t wi t h n u m ero u s as p ect s o f t h e em b an km en tfi l l cert i fi edcl ai m – i t s t i m i n g , th e fai lu re o f M ag n u s t o co m p l y wi t h co n t ract s p eci fi cat i o n s rel ev an tt o em ban km en t fi l l , an dth e fai l u re o f M ag n u s t o accu rat el y m eas ure t h e am o un to f ad d it i o n al em

b an km en tfi l l req u i red

. Id

. at2 0 9-1 0 . Th e CO al s o s p eci fi cal l y ad d res s edwh et h er M ag n u s h adb een d i rect edt o p erfo rm wo rko u ts i d e o f th e co n tract req u i rem en t s , an d co n cl u d edth atn o s u ch d i rect i o n h ad o ccu rred

. Id

. at 2 0 9

. 2
. Sco pe o f Em ba nk m ent Fi l l CDA Cl a i m Bas edo n a rev i ew o f t h e em b an km en tfi l l cert ifi edcl ai m , th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s i o n o n th e cl ai m , an dth e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s i n th is reg ard , th e co u rtfi n d s th atth e cert i fi edcl ai m i n cl u d ed an ex p l ici td ifferi n g s i t e co n d i t i o n s cl ai m as wel l as an i m

p l i ci t co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m , ex pres s l y reco g n i zedan d ad d res s edb y

the CO, fo r ad d i t io n al wo rko rd ered o u t s i d e t h e co n t ract req u i rem en t s . Th e co n s tru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m d eri v es fro m

th e Ch an g es cl au s e i n cl u d edi n th i s co n t ract , Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect edAp p . at3 1 6 , an dcas el aw rel ev an t t o that t h eo ry

o f reco v ery . Bey o n dth es e t wo theo ri es o f reco v ery , i .e. , d i fferi n g s i te co nd i t i o n s an d co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g e, t he co u rtcan n o treadth e em ban km en tfi l l cert ifi edcl ai m

t o s p eci fi cal l y

art i cu l at e an i m

pl i ed -i n fact co n t ract cl ai m , an o ral co n tract cl ai m , a d efect i ve d es i g n cl ai m , o r a d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s cl ai m
. As th e co u rtn o t ed in i t s Ord er o f Decem ber 2 2 , 2 0 1 5 , h o wev er, d et erm i n i n g th e p erm i s s ib l e s co p e o f a CDA cl ai m can p res en tn u m ero u s ch al l en g es . Of p art i cu l ar i m p o rt an ce h ere, a co n t ract o r m ay n o t b e s t ri ct l y

l i m i ted , i n a s u i t b efo re t h i s co u rt , t o t h e l eg al t heo ri es p res en t edt o th e CO. S ee, e.g
. , E & E En t er s
. Gl o b ., In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 1 20 Fed . Cl . 1 6 5 , 1 7 3 -7 7 (2 0 1 5) (E & E En t er p ris es ) (d i s cu s s i n g p reced en to n th i s t o p i c). Th e co urti n qu i red ato ral arg u m en twh et h er th e cert i fi edcl ai m s b efo re t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer co u l db e read t o en co m p as s , fo r ex am

p l e, a d efect iv e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s cl ai m . Th e g o v ern m en td i s cern edn o s u ch cl ai m i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m

p res en t ed b y

M ag n u s t o t h e CO, an dp l ai n ti ff’ s co un s el co n ced ed t hata d is t in ctd efect i ve p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i on s cl ai m

was n o t art i cu l at ed i n th e cert i fi edcl ai m s, al t h o u gh d efect i v e

5p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s were cert ai n ly i m p li cat edi n t h e co n t ex to f al leg ed d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i ti o n s
. Th e co u rtm u sti n qui re, n on et h el es s , wh et her t he o p erat i v e fact s o f p l ai n t iff’ s d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i t i o n s cl ai m i n t h e em b an km en tfi l l cert ifi edcl ai m

co n t ai n eds u ffi ci en to v erl ap wi t h a d efect i v e p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i on s cl ai m

t o p ro v i d e ju ri s d i ct i o n i n th i s co u rtfo r an em ban km en tfi l l cl ai m fo u n d edo n al l eg edd efect i v e p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i o n s
. S ee S co t t Ti mb er Co

. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 3 3 3 F.3 d1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 5 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 3) (h ol di n g t h ata cert i fi ed cl ai m p ro v i d es juri s d i ct io n i n th i s co u rtfo r cl ai m s wh i ch “ ari s e fro m th e s am e o p erat i v e fact s , cl ai m

es sen ti al l y

th e s am e rel i ef, an d m erel y as sert d ifferi n g l eg al t h eo ri es fo r t hatreco very ”).
Fo r t h is co n t ract , atl eas t s o m e o f t h e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s fo r l ev ee res t orat i o n wo ul dn eces s ari l y b e i m p l i cat ed b y

th e o p erat i v e fact s p ert i n en tt o a Ty p e I d ifferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n s cl ai m . Th e el em en t s o f p ro of fo r a Ty p e I d i fferi n g s i te co nd i t i o n s cl ai m

are as fo l l o ws :
In o rd er t o p rev ai l o n s u ch a s i t e co n di t i o n s cl ai m , a co n t ract o r m

u s tes t ab li s h fo u r el em en t s . Fi rs t , th e co n t ract o r m

u s tp ro v e t h ata reas o n ab le co nt ract o r read in g t he co n t ractd o cu m en t s as a wh o l e wo ul d i n t erp retth em

as m ak i n g a rep res en t at i o n as t o the s i t e co n d i t i o n s. Seco nd , th e co n t ract o r m

u s t p ro v e t h atth e act u al s i t e co n d i t i o n s were n o treas o nab l y fo res eeab l e t o th e co n t ract o r, wi th t h e i n fo rm at i o n av ai l ab l e t o th e p art i cu l ar co n t ract o r o u t s i de t he co n t ract d o cu m en t s , i .e. , t h atth e co nt ract or “ reas o n ab l y rel i ed ” o n t h e rep res en t at i o ns
. . . . Th i rd , the co nt ract o r m

u s tp ro v e t h atth e p art i cu l ar co n t ract o r i n fact rel i edo n th e co n t ract rep res en t at i o n. . . .
Fo u rt h , th e co n tract o r m

u s tp ro ve t h atthe co n di t i o n s d iffered m at eri al l y

fro m th o s e rep res en t edan d t h atth e co n t ract o r s u ffered d am ag es as a res ul t

. . . . 6In t 'l Tech . Co r p
. v. W i n ter , 5 2 3 F.3 d1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 8 -4 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( In t ern a t i o n a l

Tech n ol o g

y ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Th es e el em en t s o f p ro o f m u s tb e co m p ared t o th e el em en ts o f p ro o f fo r a cl ai m b as ed up o n d efect i v e p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i on s , t o s ee i f there i s s i g n i fi can to v erl ap i n o p erat i v e fact s. S co tt Ti mb er , 3 3 3 F.3 dat1 3 6 5

. To reco v er u n d er a d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s th eo ry , th e el em en t s o f p ro o f are as fo l l o ws :

[W ] h ere a co n t ract o r-cl ai m an t s eek s t o reco v er an eq u i t ab l e ad

ju s t m en tfo r ad di t i o n al wo rkp erfo rm edo n acco u n to f a d efect i v e s p eci fi cat i o n , th e co n t ract o r-cl ai m an tm

u s t s h o w th ati twas m i s l edb y th e d efect . To d em o n s t rat e t hati twas m i s l ed , th e co n t ract o r-cl ai m an tm

u s t s h o w b o t h th ati trel i ed o n th e d efectan d t h atth e d efect was n o t an o b v io u s o m i s s i o n , i n co n s is t en cy or d i s crep an cy o f s i gn i fi can ce, –i n o t h er wo rd s , a p at en td efect– t h atwo u l dh av e m ad e s u ch rel i an ce u n reas o n ab l e. E.L. Ha m m & As s o cs ., In c. v. En g l a n d , 3 7 9 F.3 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 04 ). In s o m e CDA l i t i g at io n , th e o p erat i v e fact s o f Ty pe I d i fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n s cl ai m s p res en t edt o th e CO an dd efect i v e s p eci fi cat i o ns cl ai m s p res en t edt o th e fo ru m d o n o ts i g n i fi can t ly

o v erl ap ; i n s u ch a ci rcu m s t an ce, ju ri s d ict i o n o v er t h e d efect i v e s p eci fi cat i on s cl ai m

wi l l n o tl ie. E.g

. , Ki ewi t Co n s tr . Co . v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 5 6 Fed

. Cl . 4 1 4 , 4 2 1 (2 0 0 3); Op t i mu m S er vs ., In c. , ASBCA No . 5 7 57 5 , 1 3 B.C.A. ¶ 3 5,4 1 2 (Sep t

. 1 0 , 2 01 3 ). Here, h o wev er, fo r t h e em b an km en t fi l l cl ai m , th eo ri es o f reco v ery

b as ed o n d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i on s o r o n a d i fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n rel y

o n a s ig ni fi can ts eto f co m m o n o p erat i v e fact s
. Wh en a d i fferi n g s i te co nd i t i o n cl ai m

rel at es t o eart h wo rkan d cubi c y ard s o f s oi l o r fi l l , d efect i v e s p eci fi cat i on s th atd es cri b e t h e eart h wo rkm ay co n s t i tu t e an i m p o rt an to perat i v e fact

. 3 See, e.g

. , A ce Co n s tr uct o r s , In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 4 9 9 F.3 d1 3 5 7, 1 3 6 5 (Fed

.

3 / In some factual scenarios, a defective specifications claim cannot proceed because the contract’s Differing

Site Conditions clause provides the only permissible theory

of recovery . I f, for ex ample, the only

alleg ed defect in contract documents is a failure to disclose a differing site (continued...) 7Ci r. 2 0 07 ) (Th e g ov ern m en td o es n otd i s pu t e t h atth i s d i s crep an cy [u n d erl y i n g a d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i ti o n s eart h w o rkcl ai m ] was th e res u lto f a d efect iv e s p eci fi cat i on . . . .”). Fo r t h es e reas o n s , ex p ert o p in i o n as t o al l eg edd efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s i s n o tn eces s ari l y i rrel ev an t t o M ag n u s Paci fi c’ s em ban km en t fi l l cl ai m
. S

ee S co t t Ti mb er , 3 3 3 F.3 dat1 3 65

. Th e co u rt , h o wev er, reject s an y at t em ptt o b ro ad en th e s co p e o f t h e em ban km en t fi l l cl ai m t o i n cl u d e a d efect iv e d es i g n cl ai m . Pl ai n t i ff h as n o t s h o wn , an dth e co u rtcan n o tp o s tu l at e, h o w a d efect i ve d es i g n cl ai m s hares an y o p erat i v e fact s wi t h a d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i t io n s cl ai m u n d er t h e p res en t ci rcu m s t an ces
. Fu rt h erm o re, p l ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t s reg ard i n g t he rel ev an ce o f d efect i ve d es i g n ev id en ce t o b e p ro v i dedb y M r. Si l ls ap p ear t o rel at e t o d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s , rat h er t h an t o d efect i v e d es i g n
. S ee Pl .’ s Res p. Ex . 1 , at5 (s t at i n g th atp l ai n t i ff s ho u l db e ab l e t o reco ver fo r Co m m i s s i o n -d i rect edch an g es t o co n tract wo rk , an dth atp l ai n t i ff s h o ul dh av e b een ab l e t o rel y o n d at a p ro v i d ed i n co n tract d o cu m en t s ). Fo r t h es e reas o n s , th e co u rth o l d s th atex p erto p i n i o n as t o d efect i v e d es i g n i s n o t rel ev an tt o p l ai n t i ff’ s em b an km en tfi l l cl ai m
. Fi n al l y , th e co u rtn o tes th atn o t h i n g i n t h e em ban km en tfi ll cert i fi ed cl ai m al ert ed t h e CO t o an al l eg at i o n th atM ag n u s Paci fi c’ s cl ai m was fo un d edo n an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract o r an o ral co n t ract , rat her t h an o n th e wri t t en , ex pres s co n tract ex ecu t ed b y t h e p art i es , o r co n s t ru ct i v e ch an g es th eret o . Th i s co u rth as h el dth ata co n t ract o r m ay n o ti n t ro du ce an i m

p l i ed -i n -fact cl ai m

i n t o CDA

3 (...continued) condition, the Differing

Site Conditions clause controls: Althoug h differing

site conditions and defective specifications claims are distinct in theory , they collapse into a sing le claim under facts such as these, where the alleged defect in the specification is the failure to disclose the alleg ed differing site condition. W here the differing

site conditions claim and the defective specifications claim are so intertwined as to constitute a sing le claim, that claim will be g overned by

the specific differing

site conditions clause and the cases under that clause. Comtrol, Inc. v. United States , 294 F .3d 1357, 1362 (F ed. Cir. 2002). B e cause it is not clear whether the facts of this case would be governed by Comtrol , the court will not deprive plaintiff of the opportunity

to attempt to prove a defective plans and specifications claim. 8l i ti g at i o n i f s uch a cl ai m was ab s en tfro m t h e cert i fi edcl ai m p res en tedt o th e co n tract in g o ffi cer. E

& E En t er

p r is es , 1 2 0 Fed . Cl . at1 7 5 -7 6 . Th ere i s a fu n d am en t al d i fferen ce b et w een a cl ai m fo u n d edo n a wri t t en CDA co n t ract an d o n e fo un d edo n an i m

p l i ed -i n -factco n t ract o r o ral co n t ract ad d res s in g th e s am e s ub jectm at t er. 4 S

ee i d

. Becau s e p l ai n t i ff’ s em

b an km en tfi l l cert i fi edcl ai m co n tai n edn o referen ce t o an i m p l i ed -i n -fact o r o ral co n t ract , reco v ery rel at edt o d i rect i o n s recei v edb y

M ag n u s du ri n g co n t ract p erfo rm an ce i s ad d res sedb y th e co n tract ’ s Ch an g es cl au s e an d co n st ru ct iv e ch an g e cas el aw, an d n o tb y o t h er s o u rces o f co n t ract l aw d ep en d en to n i m p li ed -i n-fact o r o ral co n t ract s
. B. Ri pra p Cl a i m 1
. The Certi fi ed Cl a i m a nd CO’s Fi na l Deci si o n Th e t i tl e o f t he ri p rap cert i fi edcl ai m was “ Req u es tfo r a Ch an g e Ord er [fo r] t h e Supp l y

an dPl acem en to f Ad d i t i o n al Ri p Rap d at edSep t em b er 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 .” Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect ed Ap p . at2 1 1 . Th ere i s n o ex p l i ci t referen ce t o a l eg al th eo ry u n d erl y i n g t he req u es t edch an g e o rd er, an dn o s p eci fi c referen ce t o co n t ract cl au s es wh i ch m i gh ts up p o rtth e ch an g e o rd er. In s t ead , th e ri p rap cl ai m i den t i fi ed t h ree d i s t i n ctqu an t it ies o f ri p rap , two o f wh i ch were i n cl u d edi n th e co nt ract p ri ce b y ei t her t h e b as e co nt ract o r Co n t ract M o d i fi cat i o ns M 0 0 1 an d M 0 0 3 , as wel l as a t h i rd qu an t i t y

o f ri prap , the “ ad d i t i o n al ” ri prap , fo r wh ich M ag n u s s o u g h t $ 6 0 7 ,5 7 5

. Id

. at2 1 2 , 2 2 2 . Itap p ears th atM ag n u s at t ri b u t edth e “ ad d i t i o n al ” ri prap p l aced o n the l ev ee as a req u i red rep l acem en tfo r “ ex i s ti n g ” ri p rap th atwas ei t h er u n s u i t ab l e o r i ns u ffi ci en tfo r t h e res to redl ev ee. Id

. at2 1 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 3 8 -3 9

.

4 / Even if the embankment fill certified claim could provide jurisdiction over claims based on implied-in-fact or oral contracts, plaintiff would need to overcome precedent which is inhospitable to implied-in-fact and oral contract claims in the contex t of CDA suits based on written contracts. See Johnson Mgmt. Grp. CFC, Inc. v. Martinez , 308 F .3d 1245, 1258 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (“[ The appellant] does not contest the g e neral rule . . . that an oral contract may not modify a written contract which is required by regulation to be in writing .” (citing48 C.F .R. § 2.101; Mil-Spec Contractors, Inc. v. United States , 835 F .2d 865, 869 (F ed. Cir. 1987))); 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 I TT Fed. Support Servs. v. United States , 531 F .2d 522, 528 n.12 (1976))). 9Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer d en i edth e ri p rap cert i fi ed cl ai m i n i t s en t iret y
. Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect ed Ap p . at2 5 0 . Fo r a n u m ber o f reas o n s , the CO co n s i d ered b o t h th e co n t ractu al an dfact ual b as es fo r t h e cl ai m t o b e fl awed . Fo r ex am

p l e, i n h i s v i ew M ag n u s b o re t h e ri sko f i n accu rat e es t i m at es fo r t h e am o u n to f ri p rap th at wo u l db e req u i redt o reh ab i l it at e t h e l ev ee. Id

. at 2 5 1 . Th e CO al s o s t at edth at M ag n u s re-u s edex is t i ng ri p rap i n way s thatwere n otrefl ect edi n cred i t s th at s h o u ldh av e red u cedth e co n tract p ri ce. Id

. at2 52 . Ines s en ce, t h e CO i n t erp ret ed t h e co n t ract an d t h e co m

m u n i cat i o n s b et ween M ag n u s an dth e Co m m i s s i o n t o fo recl o s e an y

p aym en t fo r “ ad di t i o n al ” ri prap p l aced o n th e l ev ee. 2
. Sco pe o f Ri pra p CDA Cl a i m Th e co u rt co n si d ers wh et h er th e ri p rap cert i fi ed cl ai m , as ev i den cedb y th e cl ai m i t s el f an d t h e CO’ s d eci s i o n o n t he cl ai m , m i g h ts h are o p erat i v e fact s wi t h t h e t h ree l eg al th eo ri es d i scu ss edp rev i o u sl y i n th i s o rd er. A Ty

p e I d i fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n th eo ry

o f reco v ery fo r ad d i t i o n al ri p rap wo u l d b e fo u n d edo n an as s ert i o n th atth e co n t ract m ad e an i n co rrect rep res en t at i o n as t o ex i s t i n g ri p rap up o n wh i ch M ag n u s rel i ed t o i ts d et ri m en t . Th e ri p rap cert ifi edcl ai m rel ies , i n p art , o n a s o l i ci t at i o n am en d m en t , co n t ract s p eci fi cat i o n s an d d rawi n g s , co n t ract m o di fi cat i o n s an dCo n t ract Li n e It em Nu m b er (CLIN) 0 0 7 as th e fo u n dat i o n fo r t h e am o un to f “ ad d i t i o nal ” ri p rap as s ert ed

. S ee Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect edAp p . at2 1 3 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 2 -2 3 , 2 3 4 -3 7 . Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer n o t edth atM ag n us es t i m at edri p rap qu an ti t i es b as ed , i n p art , o n “p ro jects p eci fi cat i o n an dp lan s .” Id

. at2 5 1 . Inth e co u rt ’ s v iew, an y rep res en t at i o n s i n co n t ractd o cu m en ts reg ard i n g ex i s ti n g ri p rap are i m p l i ci ti n th e ri p rap cert ifi edcl ai m . Becau s e t h ere i s s u ffi ci en to v erl ap b et ween th e ri p rap cert i fi edcl ai m an dth e o p erat i v e fact s fo r a Ty pe I d i fferi n g s i t e co n di t i o n s cl ai m , ex p erto p i n i o n as t o th e el em en t s o f a Ty pe I d i fferi ng s i t e co n di t i o n th eo ry

co u l d b e rel ev an t t o p l ai n t i ff’ s ri p rap cl ai m
. Si m i l arl y , a d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s th eo ry o f reco v ery

fo r ad d it i o n al ri p rap wo u l d b e fo u n d edo n an as s ert i o n th atth e co n t ractp l an s, d rawi n gs an d s p eci fi cat i o n s were d efect i v e as t o th e ri p rap as p ect o f t h e l ev ee p ro ject , an dth atM ag n u s was m i s l edb y l at en t , n o tp at en t , d efect s i n th es e co n t ract d o cu m en t s . Th e ri p rap cert i fi edcl ai m rel i es ex p li ci tl y

o n co n t ract s p eci fi cat i o n s an d d rawi n g s, s ee Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect edAp p . at2 2 3 , an dth e co n tract i n g o ffi cer n o t edth atri p rap co s ts were es ti m at edb y M ag n u s b as ed , i n p art , o n “p ro ject s p eci fi cat i on an dp lan s ,” id

. at2 5 1 . Th e co u rtm u s tp res u m e t hatM ag n u s i n t en d s
10t o as s ertth ati t rel i edo n p ro jectp l an s , drawi ng s an ds p eci fi cat i on s i n o rd er t o p erfo rm ri p rap wo rk . Becau s e t h ere wo u l db e s u ffi ci en to v erl ap b etween th e ri prap cert i fi edcl ai m an d t h e o p erat i ve fact s o f a d efect i v e p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i on s cl ai m , ex p erto p i n i o n as t o t h e el em en t s o f a d efect i v e p l an s an d s p eci fi cat i on s cl ai m

co u l dal s o b e rel ev an tt o p l ai n t i ff’ s ri p rap cl ai m
. Fi n al l y , th e co u rtco n s i d ers wh et h er t h e o p erat i v e fact s o f a co n s tru ct i v e ch an ge t heo ry

o f reco v ery

are i m p l i cat edi n the ri prap cert i fi edcl ai m . Th is i s a cl o s er q u es t io n , b ecau s e i n m an y res p ect s t he ri p rap cl ai m fo cu ses o n t h e p ro p er i n t erp ret at io n o f Co n t ract M o d i fi cat i o n s M 0 01 an dM 00 3 as wel l as th e ri g h t s an d res p o n s i b i l i t ies es t ab l i s h edb y th o s e m o d i fi cat i o n s
. See Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect ed Ap p . at 2 1 2 -1 6 , 2 2 2, 2 5 1. In d eed , d efen dan ti n si s t s th atth e ri p rap cl ai m p res en t s , i n es s en ce, an at t em

p tb y p l ai n t i ff t o co n v erta “ l um p s u m ” CLIN i n t o a “ t i m e an d m at eri al s ” CLIN. Def.’ s M ot . at1 2 n .3 ; Def.’ s Rep ly at8 -9

. Th e co u rt n o t es , h o wev er, th atco m m u ni cat i o n s b et ween th e p art i es are an o th er fo cu s o f t he ri p rap cert i fi edcl ai m
. On e as p ecto f t h e d i s p u t e co n cern s wh et h er co rres p on d en ce o n th e ri p rap i s s u e was i nco rp o rat edi n t o t h e co n t ract

. S ee Def.’ s Rep l y

at8 (as s ert i n g th atn ei t h er M o d i fi cat i o n M 0 0 1 n or M 0 0 3

“ i n co rp o rat edb y referen ce an y co rres po n d en ce o u t s i d e t h e fo ur co rn ers o f t h e p art i es ’ b i l at eral ag reem en t ”). Cert ai n co rres p o n d en ce i s n o n et h el es s ci t ed , b o t h i n the ri prap cert i fi edcl ai m an di n t h e co n t ract i ng o ffi cer’ s fi n al d eci s io n , as es t ab l i s h in g ri g h t s an dres p o n s i b i l i t i es u n der t h e co n t ract

. S ee Def.’ s M o t. Co rrect edAp p . at2 2 2 (ri p rap cl ai m ) (q u ot i ng a l et t er wh erei n M ag n u s as sert ed t h atex i s t i n g ri p rap wo u ldb e h an d l edo n a cas e b y cas e b as i s ); i d

. at2 5 2 (CO’ s fi nal deci s i o n ) (q u o t i n g th e s am e p arag rap h o f t h e s am e l et t er as es t ab l is h i n g th e Co m m i s s i o n ’ s ri g h t t o a cred i t fo r re-u s edex i s t i ng ri p rap ). In th es e ci rcu m s t an ces , t h e ri prap cert ifi edcl ai m

m ay in v o l v e m ore t h an a n arro wd i s p ut e as t o th e m ean i n g o f t h e t ex to f Co n t ract M o d i fi cat i o ns M 00 1 an dM 0 0 3 , an dth e co u rt m u stth erefo re i n qu i re wh eth er t h e ri p rap cert i fi ed cl ai m co u l ds upp o rt a co n st ru ct i v e ch an g e cl ai m b efo re t h i s co u rt

. A co n s t ru ct i v e ch an ge cl ai m i n cl u des th e fo l l o wi ng el em en t s : To d em on s t rat e en t i t l em en tt o an equ i t ab l e ad ju st m en t , [t h e co n t ract o r] m

u s tp ro v e t hatth e co n t ractwas m o d ifi edb y

s o m eo n e wi t h actual au t h o ri t y . Wh ere a

11party contracts with the government, apparent authority of the government’s agent to modify the contract is not sufficient; an agent must have actual authority to bind the government. Such actual authority may be express or implied from the authority granted to that agent. We must determine whether [the agency’s representative] had express or implied authority to bind the government to contract modifications he approved, or whether these changes were ratified by the CO.
Winter v. Cath dr/Balti Joint Venture , 497 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, a constructive change theory of recovery for additional riprap could be founded on an assertion that authorized representatives of the Commission approved or ratified Magnus’s proposals regarding existing riprap replacement, and that those changes to the contract work bound the government. This particular issue was fully joined in the riprap certified claim and the contracting officer’s final decision. See Def.’s Mot. Corrected App. at 222, 252. Because there is sufficient overlap between the riprap certified claim and the operative facts of a constructive change claim, expert opinion as to the elements of a constructive change claim could be relevant to plaintiff’s riprap claim. II. Relevant Expert Opinion Testimony of Mr. Champ Clark Having set forth the legal undergirding and parameters controlling the present disputes, the court now addresses specific expert opinion challenges brought by the government. The government asks the court to exclude all seven topics included in the summary of Mr. Clark’s proposed expert testimony. Among those seven topics, the court finds only two statements that could be considered to be potentially relevant to the embankment fill claim under the theories of Type I differing site conditions, defective plans and specifications, or constructive change to the contract. The first statement opines: The topographical survey for the Lower Reach project was incomplete, leading to difficulties in determining the accurate volumes of earth that needed to be moved in

12o rd er t o p ro p erl y co n s t ru ctthe l ev ee. Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect ed Ap p . at2 . Th e s eco nds t at em en t, wh i ch co u l db e rel ev an t t o b o t h th e em

b an km en tfi l l cl ai m

an dth e ri prap cl ai m , o pi n es t h at“ [t ] h e p ro ject p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s were i mp r o p er l yco p i edfro m

a p ri o r p ro

jecti n s t eado f b ei n g d es i g n eds p eci fi cal l y fo r th e Lo wer Reach Lev ee.” Id

. (em p h as i s ad d ed ). Acco rd in g t o p l ai n ti ff’ s co u n s el ato ral arg u m en t , th e k ey wo rdi n th i s s eco n d s t at em en ti s “ i m

pro perl y ,” wh i ch s h o u l db e u n d ers t o o d t o b ro ad l y refer t o i n accu rat e, i n ap pro pri at e p lan s an ds p eci fi cat i o ns . Th es e t wo s t at em en t s o f ex pert o p i n i o n h el db y

M r. Cl arkare t h e o n l y

o n es p o t en t i al l y

rel ev an tt o p l ai n t i ff’ s em ban km en t fi l l an d ri p rap cl ai m s
. M r. Cl ark ’ s o t h er o p in i o n s , as s u m m ari zedb y p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el i n t h e d o cu m en ts erv edo n th e g o v ern m en t , i n cl ud e: (1 ) p erci p i en twi t n es s fact u al o b s erv at i o n s , wh i ch are n otex pert t es t i m o n y ; (2 ) ex p erto pi n i o n s o n u n rel at ed as p ect s o f t h e l ev ee p ro

ject ; an d(3 ) i m

p ro p er an al y s i s o f t h e l eg al ri g h t s an d du t i es es t ab l i s h edb y

th e co n t ract

. 5 Id

. Th e s u m m ary o f M r. Cl ark ’ s p ro p o s ed ex p ertt es t i m o n y

d o es n o ti ncl u d e an y

ex p ert o p in i o n s wh i ch s p eci fi cal l y m en t i o n ri prap . Ins u m , M r. Cl ark ’ s ex pert t es t i m o n y i s ex cl ud ed as i rrel ev an t , ex cep tfo r h i s ex p erto p in i o n reg ard i n g th e “ t o p o grap h i cal s u rv ey fo r t h e Lo wer Reach p ro ject ” as th ats u rv ey

m i gh ts up p ortp l ai n t i ff’ s em b an km en tfi l l cl ai m , an dh i s t es t i m o ny o n i n accu rat e p lan s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s, as h is ex p erto p in i o n m ig h t s up p ortei t h er t h e em

b an km en tfi l l cl ai m

an d/ or t he ri p rap cl ai m
. Th u s , d efen d an t ’ s ren ewedm o t i o n i n l i mi n e , as i tp ert ai n s t o M r. Cl ark ’ s ex p erto p i n i o n s s u m

m ari zedi n th e reco rd b efo re t h e co u rt , Def.’ s M o t . Co rrect ed Ap p . at 2 , i s g ran t ed i n p art , as t o p arag rap h s a, d , e, f, an dg , an dthe s eco n d , th i rd an d fo urt h s en t en ces o f p arag rap h b

. Defen dan t ’ s ren ewed m o t i o n i n l i mi n e i s d en iedi n p art , h o wev er, as t o t h e fi rs ts en t en ce o f p arag rap h b , as wel l as t o p arag rap h c. S

ee i d

. (“ Th e t o p o g rap h i cal s urv ey fo r t h e Lo w er Reach p ro jectwas i n co m pl et e, l ead i n g t o d i ffi cu lt i es i n d et erm i n in g th e accu rat e v o l um es o f eart h t h atn eed edt o b e m o v edi n o rd er t o p ro p erl y co n s t ru ctth e l ev ee.”; “ Th e p ro ject

5 / As a g eneral rule, contract interpretation is not the proper subject for ex pert opinion testimony unless specializ ed knowledg e is required to interpret contract terms. E.g. , Murfam Farms, LLC ex rel. Murphy v. United States , No. 06-245, 2008 W L7706607, at *2 & n.1 (F ed. Cl. Sept. 19, 2008) (citing cases). 13p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s were i m p ro p erl y co p i edfro m

a p ri o r p ro

jecti n s t eado f b ei n g d es i g n eds p eci fi cal l y fo r th e Lo wer Reach Lev ee.”). Th e co u rtn o w tu rn s t o t h e p ro p o s edex p ertt es t im o n y o f M r. Si l l s
. I I I . Rel ev a nt Ex pert Opi ni on Tes ti m o ny o f Mr. Geo rg e Si l l s Defen d an t ’ s ren ewedm o t i o n i n l imi ne s eek s t o ex cl u d e a s i g ni fi can t n u m b er o f M r. Si l l s ’ ex p erto p in i o n s , an ds p eci fi cal l y t arg et s t w en t y -ei g htal l eg ed l y i rrel ev an tt o p i cs i n cl u dedi n h i s ex p ertrep o rt . Th e i n qu i ry i n t o t he rel ev an ce o f t h e p ro p o s edex p ertt es t im o n y o f M r. Si l l s i s m o re ex p an s i v e, due t o th e l arg e n u m b er o f d efen d an t ’ s ch al l en g es t o M r. Si l l s’ ex p erto p i n i on s , an d b ecau s e t h e g o v ern m en th as at t em

pt edt o d el et e i rrel ev an to p i n i o n s fro m th e t h i rty -fi v e p ag e n arrat i v e i n cl u dedi n M r. Si l l s ’ ex pert rep o rt . Th e co u rtt ak es a m o re g en eral ap p ro ach an d wi l l n o treq ui re an ex ci s edv ers i o n o f M r. Si l l s ’ ex p ertrep o rt . Th e co u rts p eci fi cal l y

reject s , h owev er, M r. Bax t er’ s s u g g es t i o n th at h e b e g i v en free rei n t o p res en t al l o f M r. Si l l s ’ ex p erto p i ni o n s attri al , s ub j ecto n l y t o th e co u rt ’ s i n t erv en t i o n s wh en i rrel ev an t m at eri al i s p ro ffered . In s t ead , th e co u rt ’ s rel ev an ce an al y s i s s etfo rt h b el ow i m p o s es fi rm co n s t rai n t s fo r t h e p res en t at i o n o f M r. Si l l s ’ ex p erto p i n i o n s attri al an d t h es e co n s t rai n t s, i n an db y th em s el v es , s h o ul ds u ffi ce. Of t h e t wen t y -ei g hto p in i o n s ch al l en g edb y d efen d an t , th e co u rtm

u s tag ree wi t h th e g o v ern m en t t h at t h e m ajo ri t y o f t h es e o p i n i on s ad d res s as p ect s o f t h e l ev ee p ro ject wh i ch h av e n o p o t en t i al rel ev an ce t o p l ai n t i ff’ s em b an km en tfi l l cl ai m o r p l ai n t i ff’ s ri p rap cl ai m . Th i s i s t ru e d es pi t e t he fact th atfo r p u rp o s es o f d eci d i n g d efen d an t ’ s ren ewed m o t i o n i n l i mi n e , th e co urth as d efi n ed rel ev an t ex p ertt es t i m o n y

as t es t i m o n y

wh i ch ad d res s es th e el em en t s o f p ro of fo r Ty p e I d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i ti o n s , d efect i v e p l an s an d s peci fi cat i o ns , o r co n s t ru ct i v e ch an ges t o th e co n t ract . Inth i s reg ard , th e co u rtex cl u des M r. Si l l s ’ ex p ert t es t i m o ny o n : (1 ) an y

an dal l d es i g n fl aws i n th e l ev ee p ro ject ; (2 ) al l d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s wh i ch d et ai l as p ect s o f t h e l ev ee p ro jectth atare d i s t i n ct fro m th e s p eci fi c t o pi cs o f em ban km en tfi l l an d/ o r ri p rap ; an d , (3 ) al l fl aws i n co n tract ad m in i s t rat i on th atd o n o td i rect l y s up p o rtth e el em en t s o f p ro o f fo r Ty p e I d i fferi n g s i t e co n d i ti o n s , d efect i v e p l an s an ds p eci fi cat i o n s, o r co n s t ru ct i v e ch an ges t o th e co n t ract . M r. Si l l s ’ ex p ertt es t i m on y i s al s o s ub jectt o the s am e g en eral p ro h i b it i o n s o n i n ap p ro p ri at e ex p ertwi t nes s t es t i m o n y th atthe co u rtn o t ed i n i ts d i s cu s s io n o f M r. Cl ark ’ s p ro p o s edex p ertt es t i m on y
. S ee s u pr a n o t e 5 an d acco m pan y i n g t ex t

.
14To co rrel at e t h i s rel ev an ce an al y s is wi th the l is to f M r. Si l ls ’ o p i n i on s

ch al l en g edb y

d efen d an t , d efen d an t ’ s ren ewed m o t i o n i n l i mi n e i s g ran t edi n p art as t o t o p i cs 2 -4 , 6 -9 , 1 3 -1 8 , 2 2 -2 3 , an d2 5 -2 6 , b ecau s e t h es e m u s t b e ex cl u d edas i rrel ev an tt o p i cs fo r ex p ertt es t i m o n y i n th i s s u i t

. S

ee Def.’ s M o t . at6 -9

. Co n v ers el y , d efen d an t ’ s ren ewedm o t i o n in l i m i n e i s d en iedi n p art as t o t o p i cs 1 , 5 , 1 0-1 2 , 1 9-2 1 , 2 4 , an d2 7 -2 8 , b ecau s e t h es e t o pi cs are p ot en t ial l y rel ev an ti n th i s s u i t , see i d

. , as l o n g as M r. Si l l s o p i n es wi t h i n th e co n t ex to f t h e el em en t s o f p ro o f fo r Ty p e I d i fferi n g s i t e co n d it i o n s , d efect i v e p lan s an ds p eci fi cat i o ns , o r co n st ru ct i v e ch an g es t o t h e co n t ract . Th e co u rtco n s i ders th es e ru l i n g s t o co rrect l y wei g h th e i s s u es o f p rag m at i s m , effi ci en cy an drel ev an ce h i g h l ig h tedb y the p art i es i n th ei r b ri efs an dat o ral arg um en t

. CONCLUSI ON
Th e co u rt wo u l db e rem i s s i f i tfai l edt o s ei ze t h i s o pp o rtu n i t y t o p rev en t t h e p res en t at i o n o f i rrel ev an tev i d en ce at tri al :

Th ere i s n o qu es t i o n u n d er R[CFC] 1 6 , th at t h i s co u rt , as a t ri al co u rt , h as the p ower t o i s s u e p ret ri al o rd ers s i m p l i fy i n g i s s u es fo r t ri al . No to n l y d o es th is co u rt h av e s u ch p o wer, i th as a du t y t o ex erci s e i ti n ap p ro p ri at e cas es . Th i s p o wer al l o ws the co u rt , i n t er a li a , t o d efi n e t h e i s s u es , fact s , an dth eo ri es actu al l y i n co n t en t i o n an dt o weedo u tex t ran eo u s i s s u es . To o, t hi s co u rtal s o h as th e au t h o ri t y t o i s su e p ret ri al ru l i n gs co n cern i n g th e ad m i s si b il i t y attri al o f p ro p o s ed t es t i m o n y an d d o cu m en taryev i d en ce. Ba s ket t v. Un i t ed St a t es , 2 Cl . Ct . 3 5 6, 3 5 9 (1 98 3 ) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ). Th e co u rt n o t es th atu n t i l recen t l y , th e l eg al p ri n ci p l es th e p art i es ex p ect edt o rel y up o n at t ri al , as wel l as es s en t i al co n t ract an dcl ai m d o cu m en t s , h adn o tb een fu l l y d i s cl os edt o th e co u rt . Th e co u rtwas o bl i g edt o p o stp o ne i t s ru l i n g o n t h e rel ev an ce o f ch al len g edex p ertt es t i m on y u nt i l th e reco rdwas s u ffi ci en t fo r th at p u rp os e. Ho w ev er, n o wth atth e p art i es h av e h adth e o p po rtu n i t y t o s et fo rth th ei r p ro p os edl eg al t h eo ri es i n s up p o rto f t h e arg u m en t s t o b e p res en t edat t ri al , an d n o w thatth e co u rth as , i n tu rn , wei g hed i n t o d efi ne t h e i s s u es , m at eri al fact s an d t h eo ri es act u al ly

i n d i sp u t e, i ti s th e ex p ect at i o n o f t hi s co u rtth atco u n s el wi l l

15co n sci en t i o u s l y ad h ere t o tho s e d et erm i n at io n s du ri n g th e up co m i n g tri al

.

Acco rd i ng l y , fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s i t i s h ereb y ORDERED t h at (1 ) Defen d an t ’ s Ren ewedM o ti o n In Li mi n e t o Ex cl u d e t h e Ex pert Tes t im o ny

o f Ch am p Cl arkan dPo rt i o n s o f t he Ex p ertRep ortan d Tes t im o ny

o f Geo rg e Si l l s, fi l edJ u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 6 , i s GRANTED i n pa rt an d DENI ED i n pa rt , as s t at edi n th i s o rd er; an d (2 ) On o r b efo re J ul y 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 , th e p art i es s hal l FI LE th ei r J o i nt Sti pul a ti o ns o f Fa ct

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

16