Opinion ID: 815367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The acceleration theory

Text: Constructive acceleration occurs “when the government requires the contractor to adhere to the original performance deadline set forth in the contract even though . . . excusable delay[s] . . . entitle the contractor to a longer performance period.” Fraser Constr. Co. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To prove such a claim, the contractor must prove “that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled.” Id. Here, the Board found that M.E.S. “has not proven that it was entitled to any extension of the contract performance time beyond [October 14, 2004].” J.A. 10. The contractor’s theory was that it was entitled to additional delay days and that the government compelled it to complete by October 14, 2004, thus leading to an acceleration claim. The evidence cited by M.E.S. on appeal to demonstrate that it was legally entitled to a later completion date, beyond October 14, 2004, consists of two letters, from August and September 2004, in which the contractor stated, in a conclusory manner, that the completion date was January 2005 or later. See J.A. 207, 1115. The Board found the contractor’s evidence insufficient to “prove[] that it was entitled to any extension of the contract performance time beyond [October 14, 2004].” J.A. 10. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that M.E.S. “has failed to prove that the [cost overruns] w[ere] caused by government-directed acceleration.” J.A. 11. M.E.S., INC. v. ARMY 7