ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of -- )

)

Granite Construction Company )

)

 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Michael A. Branca, Esq. 

Joshua Morehouse, Esq.

 Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Clark Bartee, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorney

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE 

ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Although we have before us cross-motions for summary judgment, because there 

are disputed material facts, we ultimately grant only partial summary judgment. This 

case involves the proper interpretation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

52.249-10, DEFAULT (APR 1984), and FAR 52.242-14, SUSPENSION OF WORK 

(APR 1984) and whether the monthly anticipated adverse weather delay in Specification

SECTION 01 10 00.00 45, 1.4 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE 

WEATHER may be subtracted from a suspension period. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. We find that the 

adverse weather delay may not be subtracted from a suspension period and grant partial 

summary judgment to Granite. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

For purposes of resolving the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, the 

parties entered into a joint stipulation of twenty-five numbered paragraphs which is 

incorporated below.

1. On August 31, 2015, Granite Construction Company (Granite) was awarded 

Contract No. W9126G-15-C-0037 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 

to perform the construction of new outlet structures and cutoff walls at the Addicks and 

ASBCA No. 62281

Under Contract No. W9126G-15-C-0037
2

Barker dams as a portion of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries federal flood control 

project in Houston, Texas (R4, tab 1).

2. On September 29, 2015, the COE issued and Granite acknowledged a Notice to 

Proceed to Granite that established a required completion date of the contract of May 31, 

2019.

3. At all times relevant to this action, the COE exercised exclusive control over 

the operation of Addicks and Barker dams.

4. Under Section 01 00 10, part 1.4 of the contract, under normal conditions the

combined release of water from the Addicks and Barker dams was to be limited to 2,000 

cubic feet per second (CFS) as measured downstream at the Piney Point gauging station 

(R4, tab 1 at 2628-29).

5. Section 00 31 33, paragraph 2.3 of the contract similarly provides that the

combined releases cannot exceed 2,000 CFS under normal operating conditions and that 

the maximum discharge from one reservoir of 2,000 CFS requires the other to be closed.

6. On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the coast of Texas. In

the following days, Hurricane Harvey brought rain as well as flooding to the Houston, 

Texas, Metropolitan Area, which includes the contract project site at the Addicks and 

Barker Dams.

7. After the landfall of Hurricane Harvey, on or before August 28, 2017, the COE 

began releasing water from the Addicks and Barker dams, with the combined flow rate 

increasing to over 4,000 CFS.

8. The COE continued to increase the combined flows of water from the Addicks 

and Barker dams through August 29, 2017.

9. By August 29, 2017, the combined discharges from Addicks and Barker dams

into the Buffalo Bayou, in conjunction with flows entering Buffalo Bayou downstream of 

the dams, caused the measured flow at the Piney Point gauging station to be in excess of 

10,000 CFS.

10. By letter dated September 5, 2017, the COE issued Serial Letter No. C-0039 

to Granite, which directed Granite to “SUSPEND WORK” on Construction of the New

Outlet Structure at the Addicks Dam site; Construction of Cutoff Walls and New Outlet 

Structure at the Barker Dam site; and Construction of Cutoff Walls at the Noble Road site 

of Barker Dam, both retroactively to August 28, 2017 and prospectively through 

October 15, 2017, pursuant to FAR 52.242-14, SUSPENSION OF WORK (APR 1984) 

(R4, tab 3).
3

11. The suspension of work outlined in Serial Letter No. C-0039 did not apply to

contract requirements to assist in emergency repairs of damage to the dams; repairs to 

any part of the temporary or permanent work performed by Granite that is damaged by 

the flood from Hurricane Harvey; construction activities related to site recovery and 

restoration which could be performed safely, as conditions improved; and activities that 

were not affected by the flooding in and around the dams.

12. The total period of suspension ordered by the contracting officer (CO) was 

49 calendar days, from August 28, 2017 through October 15, 2017.

13. After the suspension expired, Granite and the COE executed Modification

No. A00030, which extended the Contract time by 49 calendar days. In part, 

Modification No. A00030 states that it was issued “for delays from the suspension of 

work due to Hurricane Harvey during the period August 28, 2017 thru October 15, 2017” 

(R4, tab 4). 

14. Modification No. A00030 states that it is “not a release of claims by the

Contractor and does not preclude the Contractor from pursuing any claim for monetary

compensation from events occurring during the timeframe of the days covered in this

modification” (R4, tab 4 at 003547).

15. On June 14, 2018, Granite submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment 

seeking $1,250,474 and five (5) calendar days as compensation for the additional costs 

that it had incurred as a result of the suspension of work to the extent directed by the 

COE’s September 5, 2017, letter.

16. On November 30, 2018, the COE and Granite executed bilateral Modification 

No. P00008 for $961,008 and four (4) calendar days as compensation to Granite for 

additional work performed and for its time-related costs associated with 30 of the 49 days 

for which the work was suspended. The modification referenced Hurricane Harvey and 

stated in part that it included “cost associated with the direction to partially suspend work 

on September 5, 2017 due to unprecedented rain and flooding caused by Hurricane 

Harvey as well as site reclamation activities required to repair the site to pre-flood 

conditions.” (R4, tab 5)

17. Modification No. P00008 included an express reservation of rights for Granite 

to pursue compensation for the remaining 19 days of time-related costs in the amount of

$233,779.

18. Modification No. P00008 excluded compensation for Granite’s time-related 

costs associated with the remaining 19 days requested by Granite in part due to contract 

Section 01 10 00.00 45, part 1.4 which provides a chart of monthly anticipated adverse 

weather delay days.
4

19. Contract Section 01 10 00.00 45, paragraph 1.4 is titled “TIME EXTENSIONS

FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER (31 OCT 1989) (ER 415-1-15).”

20. Paragraph 1.4.2, “Baseline for Monthly Weather Time Evaluations” requires 

the contractor’s progress schedule to reflect these anticipated adverse weather delays in 

all weather dependent activities.

21. The exclusion of compensation for 19 days was based in part upon the 

anticipated adverse weather days identified in paragraph 1.4.2 of Section 01 10 00.00 45.

22. By letter dated May 23, 2019, Granite submitted a certified claim under the

contract and requested a final decision of the CO. Granite’s claim sought $233,779, plus 

interest, which represented the time-related costs that Granite alleged it had incurred as a 

result of an express suspension of the work by the COE. (R4, tab 6)

23. By letter dated August 30, 2019, the CO issued a final decision denying 

Granite’s claim (R4, tab 8).

24. To date, the COE has not compensated Granite for its time-related costs

associated with the remaining 19 days of claimed delay.

25. On November 26, 2019, Granite filed its Notice of Appeal to the COE’s

denial of its claim with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).

The following clauses and specification are incorporated into the contract and 

relevant to our decision:

26. FAR 52.242-14, SUSPENSION OF WORK (APR 1984) states in pertinent 

part:

(a) The CO may order the Contractor, in writing, to 

suspend, delay, or interrupt all or any part of the work of this 

contract for the period of time that the CO determines 

appropriate for the convenience of the Government.

(b) If the performance of all or any part of the work is, for 

an unreasonable period of time, suspended, delayed, or 

interrupted (1) by an act of the CO in the administration of 

this contract, or (2) by the CO’s failure to act within the time 

specified in this contract (or within a reasonable time if not 

specified), an adjustment shall be made for any increase in the 

cost of performance of this contract (excluding profit) 
5

necessarily caused by the unreasonable suspension, delay, or 

interruption, and the contract modified in writing accordingly. 

However, no adjustment shall be made under this clause 

for any suspension, delay, or interruption to the extent that 

performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or 

interrupted by any other cause, including the fault or 

negligence of the Contractor, or for which an equitable 

adjustment is provided for or excluded under any other term 

or condition of this contract.

(c) A claim under this clause shall not be allowed-

(1) For any costs incurred more than 20 days before 

the Contractor shall have notified the CO in writing of the act 

or failure to act involved (but this requirement shall not apply 

as to a claim resulting from a suspension order); and

(2) Unless the claim, in an amount stated, is asserted 

in writing as soon as practicable after the termination of the 

suspension, delay, or interruption, but not later than the date 

of final payment under the contract.

(R4, tab 1 at 2575)

27. FAR 52.249-10, DEFAULT (FIXED-PRICE CONSTRUCTION)

(APR 1984):

(a) If the Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the 

work or any separable part, with the diligence that will insure 

its completion within the time specified in this contract 

including any extension, or fails to complete the work within 

this time, the Government may, by written notice to the 

Contractor, terminate the right to proceed with the work (or 

the separable part of the work) that has been delayed. In this 

event, the Government may take over the work and complete 

it by contract or otherwise, and may take possession of and 

use any materials, appliances, and plant on the work site 

necessary for completing the work. The Contractor and its 

sureties shall be liable for any damage to the Government 

resulting from the Contractor’s refusal or failure to complete 

the work within the specified time, whether or not the 

Contractor’s right to proceed with the work is terminated.
6

This liability includes any increased costs incurred by the 

Government in completing the work.

(b) The Contractor’s right to proceed shall not be 

terminated nor the Contractor charged with damages under 

this clause, if-

(1) The delay in completing the work arises from 

unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault 

or negligence of the Contractor. Examples of such causes 

include-

(i) Acts of God or of the public enemy,

(ii) Acts of the Government in either its sovereign or 

contractual capacity,

(iii) Acts of another Contractor in the performance 

of a contract with the Government,

(iv) Fires,

(v) Floods,

(vi) Epidemics,

(vii) Quarantine restrictions,

(viii) Strikes,

(ix) Freight embargoes,

(x) Unusually severe weather, or

(xi) Delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier 

arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and 

without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the 

subcontractors or suppliers; and

(2) The Contractor, within 10 days from the beginning of 

any delay (unless extended by the CO), notifies the CO in 

writing of the causes of delay. The Contracting Officer shall 

ascertain the facts and the extent of delay. If, in the judgment 
7

of the Contracting Officer, the findings of fact warrant such 

action, the time for completing the work shall be extended. 

The findings of the CO shall be final and conclusive on the 

parties, but subject to appeal under the Disputes clause.

(c) If, after termination of the Contractor’s right to 

proceed, it is determined that the Contractor was not in 

default, or that the delay was excusable, the rights and 

obligations of the parties will be the same as if the 

termination had been issued for the convenience of the 

Government.

(d) The rights and remedies of the Government in this 

clause are in addition to any other rights and remedies 

provided by law or under this contract.

(R4, tab 1 at 2575)

28. SECTION 01 10 00.00 45 NON-REGULATED SPECIAL CONTRACT 

REQUIREMENTS:

1.4 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY 

SEVERE WEATHER (31 OCT 1989) (ER 415-1-15)

1.4.1 General

This provision specifies the procedure for 

determination of time extensions for unusually severe weather 

in accordance with the CONTRACT CLAUSE entitled 

DEFAULT (FIXED-PRICE CONSTRUCTION). For the 

Contracting Officer to award a time extension under this 

CLAUSE, the following conditions shall be satisfied.

1.4.1.1 Unusually Severe Weather

The weather experienced at the project site during the 

Contract period must be found to be unusually severe, that is, 

more severe than the adverse weather anticipated for the 

project location during any given month. 
8

1.4.1.2 Completion Delay

The unusually severe weather must actually cause a 

delay to the completion of the project. The delay must be 

beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the 

Contractor.

1.4.2 Baseline for Monthly Weather Time Evaluations

The following schedule of monthly anticipated adverse 

weather delays is based on National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or similar data for the 

project location and will constitute the base line for monthly

weather time evaluations. The Contractor’s progress 

schedule must reflect these anticipated adverse weather 

delays in all weather dependent activities.

MONTHLY ANTICIPATED ADVERSE WEATHER 

DELAY

WORK DAYS BASED ON 7 DAY WORK WEEK

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 

DEC

(11) (8) (6) (6) (7) (9) (7) (10) (13) (10) (8) 

(10)

1.4.3 Record

Upon acknowledgment of the Notice to Proceed (NTP) and continuing throughout 

the contract, the contractor will record on the daily Contractor Quality Control (CQC) 

report, the occurrence of adverse weather and resultant impact to normally scheduled 

work. Actual adverse weather delay days must prevent work on critical activities for 

50 percent or more of the contractor’s scheduled work day. The number of actual 

adverse weather delay days shall include days impacted by actual adverse weather (even 

if adverse weather occurred in previous month), be calculated chronologically from the 

first to the last day of each month, and be recorded as full days. If the number of actual 

adverse weather delay days exceeds the number of days anticipated in Subparagraph: 

Baseline for Monthly Weather Time Evaluations above, the Contracting Officer will 

convert any qualifying delays to calendar days, giving full consideration for equivalent 

fair weather work days, and issue a modification in accordance with the CONTRACT

CLAUSE entitled DEFAULT (FIXED PRICE CONSTRUCTION). (R4, tab 1

at 5, 2633)
9

DECISION

Positions of the Parties

Granite contends that the COE admitted that its 49 day suspension was 

unreasonable, “[f]irst, by compensating Granite for 30 of the 49 days of the suspension, 

the Government has already acknowledged that the suspension was for an unreasonable 

period of time” (app. mot. at 9; see also app. mot at 3-4). The Suspension Clause

authorizes an adjustment in the cost of performance if the suspension is for an 

unreasonable period of time. FAR 52.242-14(b). Granite contends that the 49 day 

suspension was not caused by Hurricane Harvey, “[t]he 49-day duration of the delay was 

never based on actual adverse weather. Rather, it was based on the Government’s release 

of waters from the Addicks and Barker dams and the associated flooding of the work 

site” (app. opp’n at 3; see also app. opp’n at 4, 6-7, 9). Granite contends, “[t]he Adverse 

Weather Provision has no interrelationship with the Suspension Clause, i.e., the 

anticipated adverse weather days contained in the Adverse Weather Provision are not 

actual delays and cannot be an ‘other cause’ of delay under the Suspension Clause. The 

CO was wrong to rely on the Adverse Weather Provision to deny Granite compensation 

for 19 days of the 49-day directed suspension” (app. mot. at 8-9). Granite argues 

“Contract Specification 01 10 00.00 45 (the ‘Adverse Weather Provision’), and 

particularly Paragraph 1.4 of that Specification, provided the Government with no basis 

to deny Granite compensation for the full 49-day suspension period. (R4 tab 6, 003556)

The Adverse Weather Provision only applies to the determination of time extensions for 

adverse weather under ‘the CONTRACT CLAUSE entitled DEFAULT [FIXED PRICE]’

(FAR 52.249-10, or the ‘Default Clause’). Because the Suspension Notice was issued 

under the Suspension Clause, the Default Clause (and thus the Adverse Weather 

Provision) was irrelevant to determining whether Granite would receive compensation for 

the Government’s directed suspension.” (App. mot. at 4) “The only disputed issue is 

whether the 19 anticipated adverse weather days identified in the Adverse Weather 

Provision for the period of the suspension are an ‘other cause’ of delay” (app. mot. at 6).

Concerning the COE’s position, the quantum amount claimed by Granite is not in 

dispute. By letter dated September 3, 2020, the COE stipulated that the quantum amount 

of $233,779 is accurate (ASBCA Case File). 

The COE argues that its decision to compensate Granite for 30 of the 49 day 

suspension was “equitable” and not an admission that the suspension was unreasonable, 

“Granite received a time extension for the full period of the delay, and USACE further 

agreed as an equitable matter to compensate Granite for a portion of that period even 

though the delay had been otherwise reasonable in duration” (gov’t opp’n at 3; gov’t mot. 

at 10). The COE contends the suspension was caused by Hurricane Harvey, “[i]t is clear 

from the stipulated facts and administrative record that Granite’s performance under the 

contract was impacted by the ‘unprecedented rain and flooding’ of Hurricane Harvey, 
10

and Granite subsequently acknowledged and agreed to this when it executed 

Modifications Nos. A00030 and P00008” (gov’t opp’n at 3). The COE points out, 

“Granite’s position overlooks the important fact that when it agreed to the 49 days of 

time extension under Modification No. A00030, it did so pursuant to the Adverse 

Weather Clause of the contract (gov’t opp’n at 5). The COE argues that “[o]ver the 49

calendar day period of delay resulting from Hurricane Harvey and its associated impacts 

from August 28, 2017 to October 15, 2017, 19 of those days were specifically anticipated 

by the parties as non-compensable adverse weather work days under the Adverse 

Weather Clause” (gov’t opp’n at 5). “[T]he Default (Fixed-Price Construction) clause 

and the Adverse Weather Clause exclude equitable adjustments, and as such satisfy the 

provision of the Suspension of Work Clause as it relates to preclusion of adjustments 

where ‘an equitable adjustment is . . . excluded under any other term or condition of this 

contract’. FAR 52.242-14(b)(2). The clauses, when harmonized and interpreted 

together, clearly contemplate that the 19 days of anticipated and actual delay resulting 

from Hurricane Harvey should not be compensable.” (Gov’t opp’n at 6)

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

We evaluate the cross-motions for summary judgment under the well-settled 

standard: “Summary judgment is properly granted only where there is no genuine issue 

of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving 

party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact 

and all significant doubt over factual issues must be resolved in favor of the party 

opposing summary judgment.” Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 

1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). In the course of the Board’s evaluation 

of a motion for summary judgment, “our role is not ‘to weigh the evidence and determine 

the truth of the matter,’ but rather to ascertain whether material facts are disputed and 

whether there exists any genuine issue for trial.” Holmes & Narver Constructors, Inc., 

ASBCA Nos. 52429, 52551, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,849 at 157,393 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). A material fact is one which may make a 

difference in the outcome of the case. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The opposing 

party must assert facts sufficient to show a dispute of material fact. New Iraq Ahd Co., 

ASBCA No. 59304, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,849 at 175,291-92 (citing Mingus, 812 F.2d 

at 1390-91) (“To ward off summary judgment, the non-moving party must do more than 

make mere allegations; it must assert facts sufficient to show a dispute of material fact.”); 

see Lee’s Ford Dock, Inc., ASBCA No. 59041, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,298 at 177,010. 

However, questions of law are susceptible to summary judgment. R.L. Persons Const., 

Inc., ASBCA No. 60121, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,007 at 180,236-237 (“Contract interpretation—

particularly the issue of whether a contract is ambiguous—is a question of law that 

generally is amenable to summary judgment.”)
11

Rules of Contract Interpretation

The basic rules of contract interpretation were well-stated in TEG-Paradigm Envtl, 

Inc. v. U.S., 465 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006):

When interpreting a contract, “‘the language of [the] contract 

must be given that meaning that would be derived from the 

contract by a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with 

the contemporaneous circumstances.’” Metric Constructors, 

Inc. v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 169 F.3d 747, 752 

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United 

States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384, 351 F.2d 972, 975 (Ct. Cl. 1965)).

TEG-Paradigm, 465 F.3d at 1338; see also LAI Services, Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306,

1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

The contract must be read as a whole:

Contract interpretation begins with the language of the 

written agreement. Foley Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1032, 

1034 (Fed. Cir. 1993). When interpreting the contract, the 

document must be considered as a whole and interpreted so as 

to harmonize and give reasonable meaning to all of its parts. 

McAbee Constr., Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1434-35 

(Fed. Cir. 1996). An interpretation that gives meaning to all 

parts of the contract is to be preferred over one that leaves a 

portion of the contract useless, inexplicable, void, or 

superfluous. Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 

1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A 

contractor’s interpretation need not be the best interpretation, it need only be within the 

“zone of reasonableness.” States Roofing Corp. v. Winter, 587 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009). 

Reasonableness is a Question of Fact

The parties dispute whether the 49 day suspension period was “reasonable,” as 

that word is used in the Suspension Clause, or not. Granite contends that the fact the 

COE compensated it for 30 of the 49 days of suspension is an admission that the delay 

was unreasonable (app. mot. at 9; app. opp’n at 3-4). The COE counters that it 

compensated Granite based on “equity” and not a belief that the 49 day suspension was 

unreasonable (gov’t opp’n at 3; gov’t mot. at 10). Whether a government-caused delay is 
12

reasonable or unreasonable depends on the particular circumstances of the case. 

P.R. Burke Corp. v. United States, 277 F.3d 1346, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“What is a 

reasonable period of time for the government to do a particular act under the contract is 

entirely dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.”). Given the disputes 

about the circumstances here, we have a disputed material fact that precludes resolution 

of that fact by summary judgment.1 However, we can decide the matter of the proper 

interplay and interpretation of FAR 52.242-14, Suspension of Work, FAR 52.249-10,

Default (Fixed-Price Construction), and SECTION 01 10 00.00 45, 1.4 TIME 

EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER which is a question of law. 

Interpreting the Default Clause, Suspension Clause and SECTION 01 10 00.00 45 does 

not Support Deducting Anticipated Severe Weather Delay from the Suspension Period

The Default Clause, FAR 52.249-10, Default (Fixed-Price Construction), defines

the facts supporting a decision to terminate a contract for default. The primary basis 

encompassed in the clause for the right to terminate is based on a contractor’s 

unsuccessful completion of the contract within the “time specified.” However, the clause 

provides a defense to termination through a contractor’s right to an extension in time for 

delay arising from, “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or 

negligence of the Contractor.” FAR 52.249-10(b)(1). The Default Clause includes a list 

of examples of “unforeseeable causes” of delay. Id. One of the examples is “Unusually 

severe weather.” FAR 52.249-10(b)(1)(x). If delay was caused by unusually severe

weather, the CO “shall” extend the time for completing the work. FAR 52.249-10(b)(2). 

There is no right to compensation in the Default Clause, only the right to additional time

to avoid default. There is nothing in the Default Clause linking it in any way to the

Suspension of Work Clause, FAR 52.242-14. 

Contract Specification SECTION 01 10 00.00 45, 1.4 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR 

UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER, provides guidance to the CO in determining if

weather is “unusually severe” for purposes of the Default Clause (SOF ¶ 28). There are 

several prerequisites to be satisfied before a time extension “shall” be granted under the 

Default Clause. Section 1.4.1.2 Completion Delay requires that the delay be on the 

critical path, i.e., the unusually severe weather must actually cause a delay to the 

completion of the project. Section 01 10 00.00 45 includes a list of monthly “anticipated 

adverse weather delay” as follows:

 1 We do not discuss Granite’s contention that the delay was not caused by Hurricane 

Harvey because that argument seemed farfetched and immaterial. Granite, 

however, is free to pursue and explain this contention if it desires. 
13

MONTHLY ANTICIPATED ADVERSE WEATHER 

DELAY

WORK DAYS BASED ON 7 DAY WORK WEEK

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 

DEC

(11) (8) (6) (6) (7) (9) (7) (10) (13) (10) (8) 

(10)

The contractor must incorporate the monthly anticipated adverse weather delay in its 

Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule (1.4.2 Baseline for Monthly Weather Time 

Evaluations). That means the anticipated adverse weather delay, if it occurs, would not 

cause a critical path delay because it is already built into each month’s schedule. 

Therefore, such a delay would not be cause for the CO to extend the time to complete the 

contract. Relatedly, the listed monthly anticipated adverse weather delay is used to 

calculate the delay caused by “unusually severe weather” for use in accordance with the 

Default Clause. To be considered “unusually severe weather,” the actual delay for each 

month must exceed the anticipated adverse weather delay for the time period involved. 

Advance Constr. Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 55232, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34,776 at 171,133 (“Thus, 

under Section b of this provision,[2] referred to hereinafter as the Unusually Severe 

Weather clause, the contractor will only be allowed a time extension due to weather in a 

given month for days in excess of those already accounted for in the contract.”). For 

example, in this appeal the parties agree that there are nineteen (19) days of anticipated 

adverse weather delay (SOF ¶¶ 17-18, 21, 24). This is based on the forty-nine (49) day 

suspension from August 28, 2017 to October 15, 2017 (SOF ¶ 12). The 19 days is 

comprised of one (1) day from August, thirteen (13) days from September and five (5) 

days from October based on the monthly anticipated adverse weather delay listed in the 

specification. Therefore, days of severe weather delay over the 19 days between 

August 28, 2017 and October 15, 2017, would qualify as “unusually severe weather” 

justifying an extension pursuant to the Default Clause. Applying the rules of contract

interpretation quoted above, there is nothing in SECTION 01 10 00.00 45 providing for 

the 19 days of anticipated adverse weather delay to be subtracted from the 49 days of 

suspension imposed under the Suspension of Work Clause. Moreover, there is nothing in

SECTION 01 10 00.00 45 providing for compensation for the unusually severe weather. 

The Section only defines what constitutes “unusually severe weather” for the CO’s use in

determining if default is excused under the Default Clause. There is nothing in 

SECTION 01 10 00.00 45 linking it and the Default Clause in any way with the

 2 The “provision” is an Unusually Severe Weather Clause substantially the same as 

SECTION 01 10 00.00 45, 1.4 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY 

SEVERE WEATHER (SOF ¶ 28). 
14

Suspension of Work Clause, FAR 52.242-14. That brings us to the Suspension of Work

Clause itself. 

The Suspension of Work Clause, FAR 52.242-14, allows the CO to “suspend, 

delay, or interrupt” work under the contract (SOF ¶ 26). If the suspension is reasonable 

there is no cost to the government. If the suspension is caused (1) by an act of the CO in 

the administration of this contract or (2) by the CO’s failure to act within the time 

specified in this contract, and is “unreasonable,” the contractor is entitled to an 

adjustment in its cost to perform. Unusually severe weather cannot be caused by the 

CO’s action or failure to act so it cannot trigger a cost increase under the Suspension of 

Work Clause. Moreover, there is a “no adjustment” provision Clause, which provides 

that, “to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or 

interrupted by any other cause, including the fault or negligence of the Contractor, or for 

which an equitable adjustment is provided for or excluded under any other term or 

condition of this contract” there shall be no adjustment in the cost to perform (SOF ¶ 26). 

The government argues that the Adverse Weather Clause combined with the 

Default Clause, basically provides that the contractually-anticipated days of bad weather 

for each month are excluded from compensation. Thus, according to the COE, these 

anticipated days of bad weather are precluded by the “no adjustment” clause. (Gov’t br. 

at 8-9) But the Adverse Weather Clause is applicable only to the Default Clause and is 

only used to calculate the number of days for which weather delays provide an excuse for 

late performance, as discussed above; its language does not purport to either provide for 

or exclude an equitable adjustment for weather delays. Accordingly, there is no basis to 

find that the days excluded for purposes of Default Clause time extension calculations are 

also excluded from compensation by the “no adjustment” section of the Suspension of 

Work Clause. Thus, if Granite can prove entitlement to an “adjustment” to its cost of 

performance under the Suspension of Work Clause, the Default Clause would not trigger 

the “no adjustment” provision of the Suspension of Work Clause. 

Granite seeks $233,779, undisputed by the COE, for the 19 days associated with 

the anticipated adverse weather delay in Section 01 10 00.00 45. We have found that 

there is no link between the Suspension of Work Clause and the Default Clause which 

brings Section 01 10 00.00 45 into play with the Suspension Clause. Therefore, the 

COE’s interpretation that the 19 days of anticipated adverse weather delay may be 

subtracted from the 49 days of suspension based on Section 01 10 00.00 45 is not within 

the “zone of reasonableness.” States Roofing, 587 F.3d at 1369. To the extent the COE 

argues that the contract interpretation guidance “[w]hen interpreting the contract, the 

document must be considered as a whole and interpreted so as to harmonize and give 

reasonable meaning to all of its parts” (NVT Technologies, Inc., 370 F.3d at 1159) 

somehow justified subtracting the 19 days of anticipated adverse weather from the 

49 days of suspension, we reject the argument. All that is left is for the COE to prove 

that the suspension was reasonable and as such Granite is not entitled to any more 
15

compensation than what the COE gave it based on “equity.” Alternatively, Granite 

would need to prove that the suspension was unreasonable. As we discussed above, 

“reasonableness” involves questions of disputed material fact not susceptible to 

resolution by summary judgment. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above we grant partial summary judgment to Granite and 

leave the question of the reasonableness of the suspension period for further proceedings. 

Dated: December 3, 2020

CRAIG S. CLARKE

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62281, Appeal of Granite 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: December 8, 2020

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals