Opinion ID: 552472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjustments for Extended Overhead

Text: 16 The Claims Court also concluded that Placeway's Count VI, which seeks various adjustments for extended overhead, is a unitary claim requiring certification because the total adjustment sought is $119,585.91, a sum exceeding $50,000.00. The Claims Court concluded that there was only a single claim because it considered delays in performance of the contract to be a common factual threat contributing to the creation of [Placeway's] claim. Placeway, 18 Cl.Ct. at 168. We disagree. Although there is a common type of fact involved in Placeway's various extended overhead claims, i.e., a cause of delay, that does not necessarily mean that each claim involves proof of a common or related set of operative facts. We conclude that the Claims Court erred in relying on this factual thread as being dispositive of its determination that there is only a unitary extended overhead claim. 5 Accordingly, we vacate the Claims Court's dismissal of Count VI for lack of certification and final decision, and remand for the Claims Court to conduct fact finding consistent with this opinion.