Islands Mechanical Contractor, Inc.
ASBCA No. 59655
| A.S.B.C.A. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- The Navy awarded Islands Mechanical Contractor, Inc. (IMC) a firm-fixed-price contract in 2006 to repair a wastewater treatment system at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
- IMC encountered unforeseen site conditions and alleges defective plans/specifications and nonresponsive RFIs from NAVFAC, causing delays and equipment placed on standby since April 3, 2009.
- IMC submitted proposals and revisions seeking payment for standby equipment, home office overhead, and a $373,121.78 proposal to complete the contract; NAVFAC did not accept the completion proposal or fully resolve RFIs.
- IMC certified multiple claims (original, revised, second revised). The operative (second revised) certified claim sought specific dollar amounts for standby equipment and overhead and also included the $373,121.78 completion proposal and requested an extension of time.
- IMC filed an appeal to the ASBCA after a deemed denial. The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing IMC failed to present a cognizable claim seeking a sum certain and sought relief (specific performance/injunctive relief) beyond Board authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board has jurisdiction under the CDA | IMC says it presented a certified claim including $1,974,378.88 in sum certain (standby + overhead) and seeks relief; therefore appeal is cognizable. | Government says the certified claim includes a proposal for work ($373,121.78) and seeks injunctive/specific relief; thus the claim is not a sum certain as a matter of right and is not cognizable. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: the claim did not present an overall sum certain as required. |
| Whether a proposal for additional work satisfies the CDA sum-certain requirement | IMC contends the completion proposal was part of its claim or was included inadvertently and should be severed. | Government contends a proposal is not a claim as of right and defeats the sum-certain requirement; severing is improper because claims must be presented to contracting officer as certified. | Proposal for additional work ($373,121.78) is not a sum-certain demand; it prevents the overall claim from qualifying. |
| Whether the Board can order injunctive relief or direct contract modification (e.g., acceptance without warranties, direction to proceed, contract modification, time extension) | IMC requests directions, contract modification, acceptance of equipment without warranties, replacement costs, and time extension. | Government argues Board lacks authority to grant injunctive or specific-performance relief or to order contracting officer to modify contract beyond CDA remedies. | Board lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive/specific-performance relief or to order contracting officer to modify the contract; such claims are outside Board authority. |
| Whether partial sum-certain components suffice when other parts of the claim are not sum certain | IMC argues the sum-certain portions (standby/equipment/overhead) should be considered and the rest ignored. | Government asserts the entire claim must be a sum certain; Board should not sever and entertain only parts. | Board will not entertain the sum-certain portion while discarding the remainder; the entire claim must be sum certain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (a cognizable CDA claim must be a written demand seeking a sum certain as a matter of right)
- Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 960 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a proposal for future work is not a claim as a matter of right and does not satisfy sum-certain requirement)