Opinion ID: 815367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The delay theory

Text: A contractor who seeks compensation for costs allegedly caused by government-imposed delays “has the burden of proving the fundamental facts of liability and damages.” Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Board found “no persuasive and particularized evidence . . . establishing the nature and extent of specific interferences or inefficiencies and how they materially increased [M.E.S.’s] cost,” and concluded that “[M.E.S.] ha[d] failed to prove that the [cost overruns] w[ere] caused by . . . compensable government delays.” J.A. 8, 11. On appeal, M.E.S. points to testimony by its president and owner, George Makhoul, recounting the delays it experienced and tying them to a few specific cost escalators such as material and labor cost inflation and difficulty working in cold weather. M.E.S. has not attempted to quantify the specific additional costs directly attributable 6 M.E.S., INC. v. ARMY to any particular item, and instead has asserted that all its overruns on the thirteen activities, measured relative to the cost estimates developed for its bid, were caused by the delays. Substantial evidence therefore supports the Board’s conclusion.