Manekin Construction, Inc. v. Maryland Department of General Services
233 Md. App. 156
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Manekin Construction contracted with Maryland DGS in 2010 to build a barrack and garage and submitted multiple Proposed Change Orders (PCOs) during construction; PCO No. 68 (Dec. 7, 2011) sought time and general‑condition costs tied to five impact factors and reserved rights to seek additional direct/indirect costs.
- PCO No. 68 and related correspondence were discussed at multiple biweekly Progress Meetings; project documents and the PCO log marked PCO 68 as "VOID," and minutes referenced requests for "fragnets" and a note "Dan Sharpe offered March 1, 2012 and leave open on compensational."
- Manekin submitted a "Request for Equitable Settlement" on March 18, 2013; DGS denied it on April 3, 2013 and instructed Manekin to pursue the matter under COMAR; Manekin filed notice of claim April 10, 2013 and the procurement officer denied the claim Nov. 12, 2013 as untimely under the 30‑day rule.
- Manekin appealed to the Maryland Board of Contract Appeals; after partial evidentiary hearings in Sept. 2015 (witness Daniel Sharpe testified), the Board halted the hearing and granted DGS’s Third Motion for Summary Decision, finding Manekin knew or should have known of the basis for a claim by March 1, 2012.
- The Circuit Court for Howard County affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed whether the Board properly granted summary decision and whether it impermissibly resolved disputed facts (meaning of "void," whether Manekin agreed to a March 1 fragnet deadline).
Issues
| Issue | Manekin's Argument | DGS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly granted summary decision before conclusion of the evidentiary hearing | Board improperly resolved disputed factual issues (meaning of "void," whether there was a deadline); summary relief inappropriate because disputes exist | Summary decision appropriate because record (PCO log, minutes, depositions) showed Manekin knew or should have known of denial well before filing | Reversed: Board erred — it made findings of fact on genuinely disputed issues and prematurely granted summary decision |
| Whether submission of a PCO or earlier correspondence started the 30‑day COMAR limitations period | A PCO or correspondence that is not disputed when submitted does not trigger the 30‑day clock; the clock starts when the contractor knows or should have known the agency disputes/denies the request | The PCO and "void" notation put Manekin on notice such that the limitations period began by Feb/Mar 2012 | Held for Manekin on legal point: filing a PCO/request that is not disputed does not itself start the 30‑day clock; the trigger is notice of a dispute or denial — when that occurred was a factual question for hearing |
| Whether the "VOID" notation in the PCO log meant rejection and thus started the limitations period | "Void" was ambiguous and, per testimony and minutes, indicated the matter was left open pending fragnets; ambiguity creates a material factual dispute | "Void" should be read as effectively rejecting the PCO and putting contractor on notice | Court held the meaning of "void" was a disputed factual issue that the Board improperly resolved at summary stage |
| Whether March 1, 2012 was the operative trigger date for the 30‑day period | Manekin argued the trigger occurred when the formal denial arrived April 3, 2013 (or later procurement officer denial), not March 2012 | DGS argued March 1, 2012 (or earlier) was the latest reasonable date Manekin knew or should have known | Court held that determination is factual and could not be resolved by summary decision; remanded for full fact hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People’s Counsel for Baltimore Cnty. v. Surina, 400 Md. 662 (explaining reviewing courts look through circuit court to the agency decision)
- Eng’g Mgmt. Servs. v. State Highway Admin., 375 Md. 211 (summary‑judgment standard for appellate review of administrative summary decision is legal correctness)
- Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Prigel Family Creamery, 206 Md. App. 264 (appellate review focuses on the agency decision rather than the circuit court)
- McLean Contracting Co. v. Md. Transp. Auth., 70 Md. App. 514 (state procurement contract claims are subject to mandatory administrative procedures)
- Assateague Coastkeeper v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 200 Md. App. 665 (questions of law, including statutory construction, reviewed de novo)