5625357355

C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A.

December 29, 2010Judge Shackleford
Denied / Government PrevailedOther

C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A. appealed a deemed denial of a claim for increased costs related to excavation work under an IDIQ contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which the Board ultimately denied.

Material Facts

  • The contract was awarded to C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A. on September 9, 2002, for general building renovation and environmental work.
  • C.E.M.E.S. claimed €102.964,96 for increased costs due to delays related to safety concerns over unexploded ordnance.
  • The contracting officer denied the claim, stating it was not valid due to lack of certification as required by the CDA.
  • C.E.M.E.S. filed an appeal after the contracting officer's final decision.
  • The Board found that the contractor had not shown that the government was obligated to issue a War Bombs Reclamation Certification.
  • The Board determined that the conditions encountered did not constitute a differing site condition.
  • C.E.M.E.S. did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims regarding the presence of unexploded ordnance.
  • The contractor's safety plan did not consider UXO to be a risk based on prior surveys.
  • The government had provided detailed information about the landfill site in the contract documents.
  • C.E.M.E.S. did not demonstrate that it encountered unknown conditions at the site.
  • The Board concluded that the contractor's claims were not supported by the evidence.

Parties

Appellant
C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A.
Respondent Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract Number
DACA90-02-D-0082
Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

Full Legal Analysis

Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.

Holding & Legal Reasoning

The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.

Issues Presented

Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.

Quantum & Recovery

The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.

Verified Authorities & Citations

Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.

Practitioner Takeaways

Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.

Similar Cases

Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.

Citation Graph

An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.