Court Opinion

ID: 9925896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 15:01:02.750015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:46.301727
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                   )
                                               )
 ECC International Constructors, LLC           )      ASBCA No. 59586
                                               )
 Under Contract No. W912ER-10-C-0054           )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                       R. Dale Holmes, Esq.
                                                      Michael H. Payne, Esq.
                                                       Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall &
                                                        Furman PC
                                                       Philadelphia, PA

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                      Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
                                                       Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
                                                      Martin Chu, Esq.
                                                       Engineer Trial Attorney
                                                       U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore

                                                      Katherine M. Smith, Esq.
                                                       Engineer Trial Attorney
                                                       U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East
                                                       Winchester, VA

               OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL
                ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

       The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded this
appeal to the Board to evaluate whether the government forfeited its right to challenge
whether appellant, ECC International Constructors, LLC (ECCI), satisfied the
mandatory but non-jurisdictional “sum-certain requirement” with respect to ECCI’s
February 12, 2014 monetary claim to the contracting officer, and, if it did, to consider
ECCI’s case on the merits. ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v. Sec’y of Army (ECCI),
79 F.4th 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Familiarity with that opinion is presumed. The
Federal Circuit recited the facts to be considered:

               ECCI submitted its claim to the contracting officer in
               February 2014. It then appealed the deemed denial of its
               claim to the Board in October 2014. The government did
               challenge a minor, discrete portion of ECCI’s claim on
               jurisdictional grounds in December 2016. But the
               government did not raise its more general challenge to the
                  sufficiency of ECCI’s sum certain until six years after
                  ECCI submitted its claim, waiting until after settlement
                  discussions, discovery, [alternative dispute resolution] with
                  a Board judge, summary judgment briefing, an appeal to
                  this court on a specific sub-issue, and a nine-day hearing
                  on the merits in June 2020. Indeed, the government waited
                  until the Board was poised to finally decide the case on the
                  merits to challenge jurisdiction. As ECCI notes, the
                  government’s motion additionally came after the [Contract
                  Disputes Act’s] six-year statute of limitations had run,
                  leaving ECCI with no recourse to refile with the
                  contracting officer a new claim with a revised sum certain.

  ECCI, 79 F.4th at 1380 (emphasis in original). Upon consideration of the facts recited
  above and the positions of the parties on remand, we conclude that, particularly
  because it waited until after the hearing on the merits to request dismissal on sum-
  certain grounds, the government forfeited its right to challenge ECCI’s satisfaction of
  the sum-certain requirement. See id. at 1379-80. In so doing, we specifically reject
  the government’s attempt on remand to shoe-horn into the present discussion an
  exchange during the hearing in which the government did not present the sum-certain
  challenge that it presented only after the hearing. 1 Accordingly, the government’s
  June 23, 2020 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied to the extent that it
  relies upon the sum-certain requirement.

         The government’s June 23, 2020 motion appears also to challenge our
  jurisdiction to entertain at least some of the claims in this appeal on the ground that
  those claims are new, in that they have not been presented to the contracting officer. 2
  To the extent the motion does so, we defer consideration. We also defer consideration
  of ECCI’s case on the merits.

           Dated: January 2, 2024

                                                    TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL
                                                    Administrative Judge
                                                    Armed Services Board
                                                    of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)

  1
      Gov’t Oct. 27, 2023 filing at 3 ¶ 2.
  2
      Mot. at 11-12.
                                               2
 I concur                                           I concur

 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                                OWEN C. WILSON
 Administrative Judge                               Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                    Vice Chairman
 Armed Services Board                               Armed Services Board
 of Contract Appeals                                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. 59586, Appeal of ECC
International Constructors, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: January 2, 2024

                                                PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                                Recorder, Armed Services
                                                Board of Contract Appeals

                                            3