Court Opinion

ID: 9925895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 15:01:01.825336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:52.221853
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                  )
                                              )
 ECC International Constructors, LLC          )    ASBCA No. 59643
                                              )
 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 PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

       The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded to the
Board this appeal arising from the construction of a military compound in Afghanistan
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 the May 2, 2014 monetary
claims presented to the contracting officer that are addressed in the Board’s
November 10, 2021 opinion, and, if it did, to consider this case on the merits, as
instructed by the court’s opinion in ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v. Sec’y of Army
(ECCI), 79 F.4th 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023), arising from a companion appeal.
Familiarity with that opinion is presumed. The court recited the facts to be considered:
                The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded ECCI a
                contract in 2010 to design and build a military compound
                in Afghanistan. On May 2, 2014, ECCI submitted a claim
                to the contracting officer under the Contract Disputes Act
                (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109, seeking $3,767,856.32
                in relief for additional costs it allegedly incurred due to
                government directives to perform extra work. After years
                of litigation and a hearing on the merits in June 2020, the
                government moved to dismiss nine out of 23 direct cost
                items identified in ECCI’s claim for lack of subject-matter
                jurisdiction, arguing that each of those nine cost items
                comprises multiple sub-claims that require, but failed to
                state, their own sum certain. The Board granted the
                government’s motion to dismiss.

ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v. Sec’y of Army, No. 2022-1368, 2023 WL 5367474,
at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023).

        The government says that it has forfeited its right to challenge ECCI’s
satisfaction of the sum-certain requirement with respect to only three items (additional
outlets and changed configurations, 144 port fiber optic communication units, and
additional ladder rack and cable tray) of the nine raised addressed in the court’s
opinion, pointing to the Board having entered summary judgment upon those three
items in ECC Int’l Constructors, ASBCA No. 59138 et al., 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,281
at 181,387-88, prior to the hearing of this appeal. 1 Accordingly, we view any
sum-certain challenge to those three items as forfeited. With respect to the remaining
six of the nine items addressed in the court’s opinion, and 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 has forfeited its right to challenge ECCI’s
satisfaction of the sum-certain requirement. See ECCI, 79 F.4th 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. 2
Accordingly, the government’s September 3, 2020 partial motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction is denied.

       Finally, we take this opportunity to dispose of two items upon which the parties
agree. The parties agree that ECCI is entitled to (1) $24,904 for work on a military

1
    Gov’t Oct. 27, 2023 filing at 2.
2
    Gov’t Oct. 27, 2023 filing at 3-4 ¶¶ 1-2.
                                                2
  working dog kennel, and (2) $29,680 for the relocation of spoils. 3 We award ECCI
  those amounts—together $54,584—with interest pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7109, from
  May 2, 2014, the date that contracting officer received the certified claim in which
  those items are presented, 4 to the date of payment. We defer to a future opinion our
  consideration upon the merits of the items still before us in this appeal.

            Dated: January 2, 2024

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

 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. 59643, 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
      App. br. at 89-91; gov’t br. at 119-20.
  4
      R4, tab 75 at 1, 49, 54-55, 324; see gov’t br. at 1 ¶ 3.
                                                  3