Horton Construction Co., Inc.
ASBCA No. 61085
| A.S.B.C.A. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Horton was awarded a firm‑fixed‑price contract to crush an estimated "approximately 69,000 tons" of concrete at Fort Polk; FAR VEQ clause was not included.
- Actual crushed concrete totaled about 28,997 tons; Horton sought an equitable adjustment for the quantity difference.
- Contract included FAR clauses that bar equitable‑adjustment claims made after final payment and required a contractor release of claims as a condition of final payment.
- Horton signed a Certification of Final Payment / Release on 12 Nov 2012 (signed by Chauncy Horton and witnessed); Horton later submitted a certified claim (May 2016) for $274,599, signed by Dominique Horton Washington.
- Government moved for summary judgment arguing Horton's claim is barred by the executed final release and the VEQ clause was not in the contract. Horton responded that Chauncy Horton lacked authority to execute the release and that VEQ should be read into the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Horton's equitable‑adjustment claim is barred by the executed final payment/release | The individual who signed the release (Chauncy Horton) lacked authority, so the release is not binding | The release was valid; Horton was bound and the post‑payment claim is barred | Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute whether signer had authority prevents grant on this ground |
| Whether FAR 52.211‑18 (VEQ) should be read into the contract | VEQ should be read in as a matter of law to permit recovery | VEQ was not included in the contract; thus no VEQ relief | Not decided — court need not reach whether VEQ applies because material factual dispute on release precludes summary judgment |
| Whether the claim is untimely because presented after final payment/modifications | Horton: release invalid, so timeliness rule inapplicable | Gov't: established claim was after final payment/release and thus barred | Denied summary judgment — timeliness depends on validity of release (disputed fact) |
| Whether summary judgment was proper under governing standards (Celotex/Mingus) | Horton: factual disputes exist, so summary judgment improper | Gov't: no genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court: Gov't failed to meet initial burden; summary judgment denied due to disputed material facts (authority to sign release) |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley & Ephriam Constr. Co. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standard for summary judgment in government contract cases)
- Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (summary‑judgment standard; resolve factual doubts for non‑movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden at summary judgment)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (evidentiary burden principles cited for summary judgment practice)