C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A.
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
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
- Xerox CorporationNo. 63436, 63437November 22, 2023
- Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation Space Systems, Inc.No. 63512November 22, 2023
- Pigott Asphalt and Sitework, LLCNo. 63731November 21, 2023
- Delta Mechanical Contractors, LLCNo. 63593November 21, 2023
- Kondazi EnterpriseNo. 63628October 2, 2023
- Fluor-AMEC II, LLCNo. 63554September 28, 2023
Same Year
- Shaw Environmental, Inc.No. 57237December 16, 2010
- Thorington Electrical and Construction CompanyNo. 56997December 13, 2010
- Phoenix Management, Inc.No. 57234December 13, 2010
- Parsons Global Services, Inc.No. 56731December 3, 2010
- Kelly-Ryan, Inc.No. 57168November 29, 2010
- Tefirom Insaat Enerji Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.No. 56667November 29, 2010
Same Issue
- Procal Electric, Inc.No. 63580-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Kearfott CorporationNo. 64328October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64606October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64651October 1, 2026
- Korte Construction CompanyNo. 63539, 63540September 30, 2026
- GiaMed Alliance JV, LLCNo. 64484September 29, 2026