Anthony and Gordon Construction Co., ASBCA No. 61916

Navy awarded Contract N69450-13-C-0754 to Anthony & Gordon (A&G) to renovate Building 49 (mechanical rooms 212 and 237) at NAS Corpus Christi.
The A/E and contractors could not access the mechanical rooms until hazardous hexavalent chromium remediation completed; after access, Blackstock (A&G’s mechanical subcontractor) discovered the Navy drawings mis-sized equipment and sited duct/floor openings impracticably.
A&G submitted RFIs, a request for equitable adjustment (Aug. 7, 2015), and a certified claim (Nov. 27, 2016; revised Jan. 20, 2017) alleging delays and increased costs caused by defective specifications; CO denied the REA/claim (Oct. 19, 2018).
A&G’s certified claim used the total-cost method and sought $3,990,263; technical reviewer and DCAA found entitlement as to design error but faulted A&G’s quantum proof and recordkeeping.
On appeal to the ASBCA A&G’s complaint recalculated damages using a daily general-conditions rate (totaling $2,834,205.65) and included amounts paid in later settlements with subcontractors; Navy moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Board denied the government’s motion: operative facts (defective specs causing delay) were the same; changing the damage-calculation method or reducing claimed dollars via settlement did not create a new claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal presents a “new claim” under the CDA because A&G used a different damages method on appeal	A&G: same operative facts (defective specs → delay/added costs); only changed quantum method (daily rate vs total-cost), so CO had adequate notice	Navy: switching from total-cost to daily rate materially alters the claim; CO did not rule on that measure of damages	Denied — change in damages method is not a new claim when based on same operative facts; entitlement (liability) unchanged
Whether post-claim developments (settlement with Blackstock/Great American and reduced subcontractor figure) create a new claim depriving CO of opportunity to rule	A&G: settlement merely reduced amount sought; post-claim damages or proof adjustments do not create a new claim	Navy: settlements/new facts are significant and should have been presented to CO to permit analysis of liability and quantum	Denied — reduction or adjustment in claimed amount based on later events does not change the essential nature or operative facts; such issues go to the merits, not jurisdiction

K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (appeal scope limited to claims presented to contracting officer)
Lee’s Ford Dock, Inc. v. Sec’y of the Army, 865 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (new claim exists if appeal focuses on a different set of operative facts)
Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (test whether claim derives from same operative facts)
Placeway Constr. Corp. v. United States, 920 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (single-claim principle: related evidence means same claim)
Servidone Constr. Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (total-cost method requirements for proving delay damages)
Tecom, Inc. v. United States, 732 F.2d 935 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (post-claim increases in damages based on new information need not be re-certified)