Name Redacted
ASBCA No. 61065
| A.S.B.C.A. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- The Army awarded fixed-price construction Contract No. W91JA4-12-C-7131 to the appellant to perform building upgrades in Afghanistan; performance and multiple modifications occurred and government inspected and accepted final work on November 4, 2013.
- The appellant submitted a final invoice marked "final payment" on November 4, 2013, containing a broad release of all claims with the "None" box checked for exceptions; the appellant’s CEO signed the release.
- After clerical corrections, DFAS made final payment on December 30, 2013, and the contract completion was recorded on January 7, 2014.
- The appellant later asserted it performed $142,000 in extra work it claimed was verbally directed and promised to be paid via modification; it filed an appeal in June 2016 and a certified claim in October 2016 for $144,000.
- The government moved for summary judgment arguing the executed final release and final payment bar the post-release claim; the Board granted summary judgment for the government and denied the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post-payment claim for additional work is barred by a signed final release | Appellant: Release was signed in error or based on mistake; additional work was verbally directed and government intended to modify contract | Government: Appellant executed an unqualified final release and accepted final payment; no exception listed and government lacked notice of a reserved claim | The Board held the final release and final payment bar the claim; appellant’s unilateral mistake does not revoke the release |
| Whether the final-payment exception applies when the government had knowledge of a contractor’s claim | Appellant: Government knew of the extra work so claim should survive final payment | Government: Record does not show the contracting officer knew appellant was asserting a right to additional compensation | The Board held there is no evidence the government had actual knowledge, so the exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- J.G. Watts Construction, 161 Ct. Cl. 801 (1963) (discussing mutual-mistake exception to final-release bar)
