Thorington Electrical and Construction Company, ASBCA No. 60476

Air Force awarded Contract No. FA3300-05-C-0015 to Thorington on Sept. 30, 2005 for construction at Maxwell AFB. Construction was substantially completed by Aug. 11, 2008.
Thorington submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer (CO) on Apr. 28, 2009 seeking $764,813 for unpaid work, increased material costs, and related losses; the CO issued a partial final decision on Aug. 14, 2009.
Thorington appealed the 2009 CO decision and later settled those appeals on Aug. 18, 2015, except for a separately dated July 2015 claim.
On July 16, 2015 Thorington submitted a letter to the CO titled “Amended Claim to the Claim Submitted on 28 April 2009” seeking $20 million (later reduced to $3.75 million on appeal) for loss of business, profits, and other consequential harms.
The CO issued a final decision denying the July 16, 2015 claim on Nov. 30, 2015; Thorington appealed on Feb. 26, 2016 (docketed as ASBCA No. 60476).
The Board granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, holding the July 2015 claim time‑barred under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) six‑year limitations period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thorington’s July 2015 submission was timely under the CDA	July 2015 submission is an amendment to the timely Apr. 28, 2009 claim and should relate back	The 2015 submission accrued no later than Apr. 28, 2009; submitted more than six years later and thus time‑barred	Held: Time‑barred — claim accrued by Apr. 28, 2009 and was not timely submitted
Whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) relation‑back applies to claims before a CO	Rule 15(c) allows relation back of amendments; thus the 2015 letter should relate to 2009 claim	Rule 15(c) governs court pleadings, not CO claims; no basis in CDA or Board rules to permit relation back of an amended claim after a final decision	Held: Rule 15(c) inapplicable; cannot use it to evade CDA limitations
Whether the CO’s or government’s knowledge can excuse untimely filing	Government’s awareness of facts or potential claims permits amendment or tolling	Accrual is based on claimant’s knowledge; government knowledge does not excuse failure to file within six years	Held: Government knowledge/extra discovery irrelevant to statute of limitations outcome
Whether additional discovery should defer summary judgment	Additional discovery might show govt. knowledge relevant to relation‑back	Even full discovery of government knowledge would not change accrual date or timeliness	Held: No need for further discovery; summary judgment appropriate

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment burdens and inferences)
First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 (summary judgment context)
Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States, 16 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir.) (non‑movant burden at summary judgment)
Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 739 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir.) (refusal to delay summary judgment for meritless discovery requests)
Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 152 (Rule 15 cannot revive time‑barred claim)
Design & Prod., Inc. v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 80 (Cl. Ct.) (analysis of Rule 15 in court pleading context; distinguishing court‑pleading amendments from CO claims)