The Armed Forces Contract Board of Appeal in ECC International Constructors, LLC (ASBCA No. 59643, November 9, 2021) issued a partial summary judgment, with which several claims of the contractor were rejected for lack of a certain sum. In its claim submission to the client, the contractor requested $ 3,767,856.32 for additional work. The claim was broken down into 23 direct expense lines for a total of $ 3,212,831.76 before adding general and administrative costs, fees and deposits to determine the total claim. The government has challenged nine of the direct expense items on the grounds that they did not provide a specific amount.
The board granted the government’s request, noting that the validity of a contractor’s filing as a legitimate claim will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The jurisdiction standard must apply to every claim, not an entire case; The place of jurisdiction is for claims that meet the requirements of an appropriate indication of the amount requested and an appropriate indication of the basis of the request. The requirement that a claim adequately identify both the amount requested and the basis of the request means that requests must include separate claims if they either require different legal remedies or if they rely on materially or legally materially divergent reasons. The aim of this approach is to give the client sufficient opportunity in advance to decide on an application.
The Board then gave examples of different types of claims. Claims for different types of remedy, such as B. Expected damage versus consequential damage are different claims. The presentation of a significantly different factual or legal theory (e.g. breach of contract due to late construction of a building versus breach of contract due to construction with wrong materials) justifies a different claim.
As a result, a contractor’s monetary claim must indicate not only a certain amount for the overall claim, but also a certain amount for each individual claim component within the overall claim. The chamber found that the contractor had presented the client as individual claims based on more than a series of significantly different, unrelated facts. The contractor did not provide the client with separate amounts for each “partial claim”. As a result, the board was not empowered to make these claims and therefore these claims were dismissed.
The lesson from this decision is that if multiple amendments have been rejected, the contractor should be careful to specify the basis for the claim and include the requested amount for each of these proposals in its proposal submission.