Volmar Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 60710-910

Volmar Construction was awarded a renovation contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Contract No. W912QR-12-C-0074).
On 19 May 2016 Volmar submitted seven certified claims (plus one earlier-decided claim) seeking money and time extensions for various impacts and costs (asbestos, extended overhead, canopy modification, peeling paint, booster fans, etc.).
The contracting officer (CO) issued a final decision on the kitchen equipment claim on 18 July 2016 and notified Volmar that the remaining seven final decisions would be issued on or before 31 March 2017.
Volmar petitioned the ASBCA under Board Rule 1(a)(5) (CDA § 7103(f)(4)) asking the Board to direct the CO to issue decisions sooner, arguing the CO’s March 31, 2017 date was unreasonably delayed.
The government defended the March 31, 2017 date, explaining the current CO lacks prior exposure to the claims and intends to hire an outside scheduling expert (estimated ~150 days for contracting and expert report), plus time to assemble documentation and confer with technical experts.
The Board found the government’s timetable unreasonably long given the claims had been pending (and parts submitted) for months and that staffing/time-to-hire issues are within the government’s control; the Board directed the CO to issue decisions by January 13, 2017.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CO’s proposed deadline (Mar 31, 2017) for issuing final decisions is unreasonable delay under the CDA	The Mar 31, 2017 date is undue delay (10–13 months after submissions); Board should direct an earlier date	The date is reasonable because the new CO needs to hire an outside scheduling expert and must gather documentation and consult technical experts	The Board held Mar 31, 2017 was undue delay and directed the CO to issue decisions by Jan 13, 2017
Whether internal government staffing/timing for review justifies extended decision period	N/A (Volmar argued only that delay was undue)	CO’s unfamiliarity with the claims and internal resourcing justify additional time	The Board rejected governmental staffing/resourcing as a persuasive reason; internal staffing is within government control and not a CDA factor
Whether retaining an outside expert justifies the CO’s timetable	Volmar argued expert needs did not justify such a long delay given prior submissions	Government contended outside scheduling expert would require ~90 days to contract plus ~60 days to produce report	The Board found the expert report could be produced earlier (mid-October under govt’s estimate) and that the remaining time requested was excessive; deadline shortened to Jan 13, 2017

No officially reported (bluebook-format) cases with reporter citations appear in the opinion; the Board relied on prior ASBCA decisions reported in B.C.A. digests but did not cite cases with official reporter citations.