This case arises under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (codified at 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (2000)) (“CDA”). Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy (“Navy” or “government”), appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “Board”) awarding The Sherman R. Smoot Corporation (“Smoot”) compensation for a fifty-one-day delay in the completion of Contract No. N62477-94-C-0028 between Smoot and the Navy (the “contract”).
In re Sherman R. Smoot Corp.,
ASBCA No. 53115, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198,
BACKGROUND
I.
On May 3, 1996, the Navy awarded Smoot the contract, at the firm fixed price of $19,073,139, for renovation and construction work at the Washington Navy Yard. The contract included the standard fixed-price construction contract terms and conditions required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FARs”). See 48 C.F.R. § 52 (1996). The required completion date for the project was March 9, 1998. Smoot, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶32,-198 at 159,153-54 (Findings of Fact (“FF”) 1, 2, 3).
In letters dated November 20, 1996 and February 6, 1997, Smoot notified Lieutenant Commander (“LCDR”) Andrew Trotta, Navy Project Engineer, of design and construction changes that Smoot said would cumulatively delay the completion of the project by fifty-one days to April 29, 1998. On August 8, 1997, Smoot submitted to contracting officer (“CO”) John Denton a claim designated “PCO # 172 (Equitable Adjustment for Time Extension)” (“PCO 172”). In the claim, Smoot sought to recover extended overhead costs in the amount of $448,115 for fifty-three calendar days of delay, based upon a uniform daily rate jof $8,455. 1 PCO 172 was based on the cumulative effect of the delays referenced in Smoot’s November 20, 1996 and February 6, 1997 letters. In a letter dated August 11, LCDR Trotta stated, “the construction schedule recently submitted is approved with a completion date of 29 April, 1998 .... This time is fully compen-sable, and upon approval for the related costs associated with this time, a modification will be issued. This has been discussed and approved by the [contracting officer].” CO Denton wrote Smoot on October 6, 1997, (i) stating that only twenty-one of the fifty-three days of the delay were the fault of the Navy and therefore compensable, but (ii) agreeing to issue a contract modification for a time extension to April 29, 1998. 2 Smoot, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198 at 159,153-54.
Bilateral Modifications A00055, A00056, and A00121, issued in May and October *847 1997, provided equitable adjustments in the contract price for the four changes that PCO 172 identified as having caused the fifty-one day delay. Each modification contained the following accord and satisfaction provision:
Acceptance of this modification by the contractor constitutes an accord and satisfaction and represents payment in full for both time and money and for any and all costs, impact effect, and for delays and disruptions arising out of, or incidental to, the work as herein revised.
In November 1997, CO Denton sent to Smoot proposed bilateral Modification A00135 as a “complete equitable adjustment” for a “51 day time extension,” which Smoot returned to CO Denton unsigned in a November 12 letter. In that letter, Smoot responded, “Our agreement ... is as stated in our November 12, 1997 letter ... which is a fully compensable time extension, and therefore we do not accept your bilateral modification with the contract price unchanged.” That same day, Smoot sent a letter to Commander James Cowell, then Resident Officer in Charge of Construction, expressing its confusion at the differing positions taken by (i) LCDR Trotta in his August 11, 1997 letter; (ii) CO Denton in his October 6, 1997 letter; (iii) Trotta in an oral statement on October 7, 1997, that CO Denton’s letter would be rescinded; and (iv) proposed bilateral Modification A00135. On November 20, 1997, Smoot certified PCO 172 as a claim for compensation, and on November 25, 1997, it amended PCO 172 to assert a claim in the amount of $535,126. Smoot, 03-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198 at 159,154-55.
On March 4, 1998, the Navy issued unilateral Modification A00135, which extended the contract completion date by fifty-one days based upon PCO 172, and by seven days for another delay to May 6, 1998. Six days later, on March 10, 1998, the Navy issued unilateral Modification A00177, which increased the total contract price by $80,000. Smoot amended PCO 172 in February 1999 to claim $462,931 ($406,608 for the fifty-one-day delay at a daily rate of $7,973 plus $56,323 for “lump sum costs”). On January 19, 2000, CO Denton issued unilateral Modification A00230. This modification, according to the Board, was issued not as a final decision of the contracting officer, but “to unilaterally definitize Modification A00177 and to reflect an increase in the total contract value in the amount of $203,776,” which was paid to Smoot. Smoot, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198 at 159,155-56.
On August 1, 2000, Smoot amended PCO 172 so as to make the final amount of its claim $179,155; this amount was net of the $283,776 already paid by the Navy. At the same time, Smoot requested a final decision from the contracting officer. When no final decision was forthcoming, on October 31, 2000, Smoot appealed to the ASBCA pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 605(c)(5), 607, from a “deemed denial” of PCO 172. Id. at 159,156. 3
II.
Before the Board, Smoot argued that LCDR Trotta had agreed that all fifty-one days of delay were compensable, that CO Denton subsequently recognized that at least some of those fifty-one days were *848 compensable by paying Smoot $283,776, and that the issuance of unilateral Modifications A00177 and A00230 years after the modifications containing the accord and satisfaction provisions (bilateral Modifications A00055, A00056, A00121) proved that CO Denton did not regard those accord and satisfaction provisions as effective. In response, the Navy asserted that the accord and satisfaction provisions in bilateral Modifications A00055, A00056, and A00121 did bar Smoot’s claim in PCO 172, and that, in any event, Smoot had failed to present the requisite evidence to justify recovery. Id. at 159,156.
Following a hearing, the Board first concluded that the Navy was not contractually bound by LCDR Trotta’s August 11, 1997, letter. The Board based its conclusion on the fact that Trotta’s letter made it clear that he was not a contracting officer, as well as on the fact that CO Denton denied that he had approved full compensation for the extension in Trotta’s letter and told Smoot not to take any directions from Trotta without his (CO Denton’s) signature. Id. at 159,156 (FF 6).
Second, the Board rejected the Navy’s accord and satisfaction defense. The Board relied on the principle that when the government and a contractor continue to consider a contractor’s claim after the contractor has signed a release, their conduct demonstrates that they did not consider the release to constitute an accord and satisfaction of the claim. Under such circumstances, the Board stated, the release is not a bar to prosecution of the claim.
Id.
at 159,156-57 (citing
John T. Jones Constr. Co.,
ASBCA Nos. 48303, 48593, 1998-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 29,892 at 147,975,
Finally, the Board concluded that the Navy was responsible for the fifty-one-day delay. The Board invoked a rebuttable presumption found in its caselaw, the so-called
“McMullan
presumption.”
See Robert McMullan & Son, Inc.,
ASBCA No. 19023, 1976-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 11,728 at 55,903,
ANALYSIS
I.
We review a decision of the ASBCA on questions of law without deference. 41 U.S.C. § 609(b) (2000);
White v. Edsall Constr. Co.,
II.
The government asserts first that the Board erred in not holding that PCO 172 was barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. When, as here, the Board’s findings of fact are not in dispute, the question of whether a claim is discharged by accord and satisfaction essentially reduces to a question of law. A claim is discharged by accord and satisfaction when “some performance different from that which was claimed as due is rendered and such substituted performance is accepted by the claimant as full satisfaction of his claim.”
O’Connor v. United States,
In response, Smoot points to
Community Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Kelso,
We agree with the Board that, in the circumstances of this case, the accord and satisfaction provisions in Modifications A00055, A00056, and A00121 did not bar Smoot’s prosecution of PCO 172. As noted above, the release of a claim by accord and satisfaction occurs when performance different from that which was claimed is rendered and accepted by the claimant as full satisfaction of his claim.
Cmty. Heating,
courts may refuse to bar a claim based upon the defense of accord and satisfaction where the parties continue to consider the claim after execution of a release. Such conduct manifests an intent that the parties never construed the release as an abandonment of plaintiffs earlier claim.
*850
Id.
(citing
Winn-Senter,
In
Community Heating,
the contractor sought to recover costs incurred as a result of a 474-day delay allegedly caused by the government.
Modifications A00055 and A00056 were issued on May 7, 1997, while Modification A00121 was issued on October 9, 1997.
Smoot,
03-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198 at 159,154 (FF 8). PCO 172 was submitted to the contracting officer on August 8, 1997.
Id.
(FF 5). The parties do not dispute that PCO 172 covers the same matters as Modifications A00055, A00056, and A00121. Modification A00135 was subsequently issued on March 4, 1998, and extended the contract completion date by fifty-one days for PCO 172, while Modification A00177 was issued on March 10, 1998 “to increase the amount of funding toward final settlement of ... (Smoot PCO 172)
....” Id.
at 159,155 (FF 14). Modification A00230 then issued on January 19, 2000, “to unilaterally definitize Modification A00177 and to reflect an increase in the total contract value in the amount of $203,776.00,” and Smoot was paid that amount.
Id.
at 159,156 (FF 16). We think it clear that subsequent to Modifications A00055, A00056, and A00121, the Navy not only “continuefd] to consider” PCO 172,
Cmty. Heating,
*851 III.
A.
As noted above, in ruling for Smoot, the ASBCA applied the
McMullan
presumption. The presumption works in the following manner: When the Board is faced with a claim by a contractor for costs incurred as a result of a delay, and the government extended the period of contract performance, the Board will invoke a presumption, subject to rebuttal, that the government was at fault for the delay.
See Cable & Computer Tech., Inc.,
ASBCA Nos. 47420, 48846, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,237 at 159,411,
In McMullan, the contractor submitted a claim for overhead costs that were incurred during a suspension in contract work ordered by the government. 1976-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 11,728 at 55,903. The government subsequently granted the contractor a fifty-five-day extension of the contract completion date. Id. The Board concluded:
Respondenths [sic] grant of the 55 day extension in Modification 4 amounted to a recognition by it that the overall project was delayed to that extent and an administrative determination that the delay in question was not due to the fault or negligence of [the contractor]. It also raised a presumption, subject to rebuttal, that respondent was responsible for the delay. This presumption was not overcome by respondent.
Id.
(citing
Singleton Sheet Metal Works, Inc.,
ASBCA No. 12402, 1969-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 7,444,
The government contends that the ASBCA erred in applying the
McMullan
presumption. According to the government, the presumption is “at odds” with section 6(a) of the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 605(a) (hereinafter “section 605(a)”), and with the decisions of this court in
Assurance Co. v. United States,
Smoot responds that its appeal was taken from a “deemed denial” of PCO 172 by CO Denton, who did not render a final decision on its delay claim. Smoot, 03-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32, 198 at 159,156 (FF 18). Accordingly, Smoot argues that Wilner and Assurance have no bearing on this appeal. Smoot contends that Wilner relied on the plain language of 41 U.S.C. § 605(a), which refers to findings of fact solely in the setting of a contracting officer’s final decision. Thus, Smoot urges that section 605(a) “does not abolish admissions against interest, contractual modifications, or presumptions arising from acts or conduct other than a contracting officer’s decision-” Br. Appellee at 11. Smoot argues that because the Board relied upon Modification A00135, it did not impermissibly resort to a presumption based upon findings of fact in a contracting officer’s final decision.
Whether the ASBCA erred in applying the McMullan presumption because, as the government claims, the presumption is “at odds” with section 605(a) and Wilner and Assurance is a question of law. We consider first the statutory language.
B.
The CDA provides two avenues by which a government contractor may appeal a decision of a contracting officer denying a claim by the contractor. The contractor may appeal within ninety days of the contracting officer’s decision to the appropriate agency board of contract appeals, 41 U.S.C. § 606, or within a year of the contracting officer’s decision to the United States Court of Federal Claims,
id.
§ 609(a). However, there are two prerequisites to an appeal to either a board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. Those prerequisites are (1) that the contractor must have submitted a proper CDA claim to the contracting officer requesting a decision,
id.
§ 605(a), and (2) that the contracting officer must either have issued a decision on the claim,
id.
§ 609(a), or have failed to issue a final decision within the required time period,
id.
§ 605(c)(5). We have referred to the decision by the contracting officer under the CDA as a “final decision.”
Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton,
That brings us to section 605(a), the statutory provision upon which the government relies. It provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) Contractor claims. All claims by a contractor against the government relating to a contract shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision. All claims by the government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a decision by the contracting officer .... The contracting officer shall issue his decisions in writing, and shall mail or *853 otherwise furnish a copy of the decision to the contractor. The decision shall state the reasons for the decision reached, and shall inform the contractor of his rights as provided in this Act. Specific findings of fact are not required, but, if made, shall not be binding in any subsequent proceeding.
41 U.S.C. § 605(a) (2000). The McMullan presumption is not related to a contracting officer’s final decision under the CDA. Rather, it arises from the interim decision of a contracting officer to extend a contract’s completion date. Thus, in this ease, Smoot is not arguing that findings of fact in a final decision by CO Denton gave rise to a presumption. What Smoot is arguing is that CO Denton’s interim decision extending the contract completion date gave rise to a presumption. For its part, the government does not contend that CO Denton’s decision either constituted, or was part of, a final decision under the CDA. Rather it argues that application of the McMullan presumption is inconsistent with the policies of the CDA.
C.
The government also argues that the
McMullan
presumption is at odds with
Wilner
and
Assurance. Wilner
is the starting point for our analysis. Melvin Wilner, doing business as Wilner Construction Company (“Wilner”), entered into a contract with the Department of the Navy to construct a training facility at Camp Pendleton, California. After the project experienced delays that postponed its completion by 447 calendar days, Wil-ner submitted a CDA claim seeking additional compensation based on government-caused delay.
Wilner,
The government appealed the Claims Court’s decision. On appeal, the government argued that the court had erred as a matter of law by failing to conduct a proper de novo review in the case as required by the CDA. The government contended that, in ruling for Wilner, the Claims Court deferred to the contracting officer’s final decision and therefore made improper use of the decision under the CDA. Id. at 1400. Faced with the government’s argument, we stated that the task before us was to determine whether the Claims Court’s approach in the case was “proper under the CDA.” Id.
*854
We began our analysis by examining the two pertinent provisions of the CDA, section 605(a), 41 U.S.C. § 605(a), dealing with the contracting officer’s decision, which we have discussed above, and section 609(a)(3),
id.
§ 609(a)(3). Section 609(a)(3) provides that when a contractor challenges a contracting officer’s final decision in a direct access suit in the Court of Federal Claims, the action proceeds “de novo in accordance with the rules of the appropriate court.”
Wilner,
We concluded in
Wilner
that the language of the CDA and our decision in
Assurance
made it clear that “when suit is brought following a contracting officer’s decision, the findings of fact in that decision are not binding upon the parties and are not entitled to any deference.”
After arriving at our central holding in
Wilner,
we addressed the Claims Court’s reliance upon
J.D. Hedin Construction Co. v. United States,
We were faced in
Wilner
with the following circumstances: a contractor submitted a claim for compensation to the contracting officer; the contracting officer issued a final decision on the claim; the contractor appealed to the Claims Court under the CDA; and the government then appealed to us from the decision of the Claims Court.
We conclude today that the
McMullan
presumption is at odds with the CDA. The
McMullan
presumption arose in light of two considerations that were reflected in our predecessor court’s jurisprudence prior to enactment of the CDA. The first was the belief that the contracting officer, who had day-to-day contact with the contract work, was in the best position of anyone, except the contractor, to know the extent of the delay for which the contractor was responsible.
Irwin & Leighton v. United States,
However, Congress made it clear in the CDA that any findings of fact by a contracting officer in a final decision are not binding in any subsequent proceeding. Although, by its terms, the CDA only applies to contracting officers’ final decisions, in light of the policies underlying the CDA, we see no basis for drawing a distinction between an interim and a final decision of a contracting officer. Apart from finality, the interim decision here is indistinguishable ñ-om a final decision. As set forth in the regulations, a “decision” must include five components: “(i) Description of the claim or dispute; (ii) Reference to the pertinent contract terms; (iii) Statement of the factual areas of agreement and disagreement; (iv) Statement of the contracting officer’s decision, with supporting rationale;” and (v) a paragraph advising the contractor of its appeal rights and the requirements for filing an appeal. 48 C.F.R. § 33.211(a)(4) (2000). 7
Modifications A00135, A00177, and A00230 in this case are written decisions of the contracting officer as to the extent of the excusable delay and the allowable overhead costs as a result of that delay. The modifications include the first four requirements of final decisions. They (i) describe the contractor’s claim; (ii) refer to the Smoot change order request and the “Changes” provision of the contract; (iii) indicate the agreed-to fifty-one days of delay; and (iv) state the government’s allowed amounts for Smoot’s overhead costs
*857
and describe the rationale supporting the government’s decision. Taken together, the modifications are indistinguishable from final decisions, save for the absence of a notice of the right to appeal. Although they do not constitute a final decision allowing Smoot to appeal, they effectively became final with the deemed denial of the claim, and they are the only written decisions expressing the contracting officer’s resolution of the dispute between the contractor and the government. Indeed, final decisions themselves often refer to such interim decisions.
See, e.g., Omwn-Fischbach Int’l v. Pirie,
Finally, we think that the McMullan presumption is logically inconsistent. There are three potential causes of delay in performance of a contract: the contractor’s actions, the government’s actions, and forces outside the control of both parties. A delay in a construction contract is excusable if it arises from either the government’s action or external forces. 8 Thus, the mere grant by the government of a contract extension does not indicate that the government is at fault; rather, one of a number of other events external to the government could be responsible. In such a situation, a presumption that the government is responsible for the delay is unwarranted, and nothing in the Federal Acquisition Regulations supports such a presumption.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we agree with the Board that Smoot’s claim was not barred by accord and satisfaction. However, we hold that the McMullan presumption is contrary to the CDA and is no longer good law. Since the decision of the Board rested upon the presumption, it is vacated. We remand the case to the Board for a determination of the merits of Smoot’s claim, but without the benefit of any presumption arising from the decision of the contracting officer extending the completion date of Smoot’s contract.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
VACATED and REMANDED
Notes
. In its November 1996 letter, Smoot claimed that the completion of the contract would be delayed from March 9 to April 15, 1998, a thirty-seven-day period; yet, Smoot labeled this a "39 calendar day delay” in its letter. This discrepancy is not explained in the Board's opinion. In its Februaty 1997 letter, Smoot identified an additional delay period of fourteen days. Although the actual delay Smoot identified in these two letters totaled only fifty-one days, PCO 172 requested reimbursement for fifty-three calendar days. Before the Board, however, Smoot abandoned its claim that the delay was fifty-three days and pursued a claim for only fifty-one days of delay. See Smoot, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,-198 at 159,156. Hereafter, we will refer to the claim as one for a fifty-one-day delay.
The daily rate of $8,455 was for extended overhead costs that Smoot alleged were associated with the delay.
See Kinetic Builder’s Inc. v. Peters,
. As of October 1997, CO Denton had not issued a contract modification extending the original project completion date of March 9, 1998. Smoot, 2003-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,198 at 159,153-54.
. The CDA provides for a contractor to appeal from a "deemed denial" of his claim, when the contracting officer does not issue a decision:
Any failure by the contracting officer to issue a decision on a contract claim within the period required will be deemed to be a decision by the contracting officer denying the claim and will authorize the commencement of the appeal or suit on the claim as otherwise provided in this Act.
41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(5) (2000).
.
Sam Bonk Uniform & Civilian Cap Co., Inc. v. United States,
. The court in
Hedin
relied for its statement of the presumption on the following earlier
*855
cases from the Court of Claims:
Robert E. Lee & Co., Inc. v. United States,
. The government points to the part of our decision in
Wilner
where we stated that we were overruling
Hedin “to the extent it
stands for the proposition that a contracting officer's decision constitutes a strong presumption or an evidentiary admission of the extent of the government's liability, albeit subject to rebuttal.”
Wilner,
The statement in
Wilner
overruling
Hedin
must be viewed in its proper context. As seen, what was at issue in
Wilner
was the status in a CDA action in the Claims Court of findings of fact in a contracting officer's final decision in response to a CDA claim. As also seen,
Hedin
had nothing to do with that; it was a pre-CDA case involving not a contracting officer’s final decision, but rather a contracting officer's interim decision during the period of the contract. Thus, it was only after the analysis in
Wilner
in which the court dealt with the CDA and its prior decision in
Assurance
and concluded that the decision of the Claims Court was contrary to the
de novo
review requirement of the CDA that
Hedin
was discussed.
Hedin
was discussed because of both the Claims Court’s and the
Wilner
dissent’s reliance on the case.
See,
respectively,
Wilner,
. The final decision must also include a demand for payment "in all cases where the decision results in a finding that the contractor is indebted to the Government.” 48 C.F.R. § 33.21 l(a)(4)(vi) (2003).
. The pertinent regulation provides:
The Contractor's right to proceed shall not be terminated nor the Contractor charged with damages under this clause, if—
(1) The delay in completing the work arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. Examples of such causes include (i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers ....
48 C.F.R. § 52.249 — 10(b)(1) (2003).