58634

Parsons Evergreene, LLC

September 5, 2018Judge Clarke
Sustained / Appellant PrevailedCDA JurisdictionEquitable Adjustment (REA)Contract Changes / Constructive ChangesQuantum / DamagesDCAA Involved

The Air Force moved to partially dismiss Section V of Parsons Evergreene, LLC's certified claim for lack of CDA jurisdiction, arguing that the claim lacked sufficient information and detail. The Board denied the motion, concluding that the claim provided adequate notice of its basis and amount and that the contracting officer in fact conducted a meaningful review.

Material Facts

  • Section V concerned Government Management and Administration of the Design-Build Process during the Build Phase and was previously REA No. 8.
  • Parsons Evergreene identified Section V as a Modified Total Cost claim involving 22 events.
  • The events included structural and design issues, alleged government interference, inspection and material-approval issues, and other construction-related matters.
  • The Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment conducted a technical evaluation that discussed each event in a 31-page report with 27 attachments.
  • DCAA audited Parsons Evergreene's claim and questioned the vast majority of the claimed costs while relying heavily on the technical analysis.
  • The contracting officer considered each element of Section V in a 142-page final decision and denied Section V in its entirety.
  • The Air Force's motion was filed after the case was fully litigated and over five years after the Air Force's receipt of the claim.
  • The Air Force's motion contained no testimony supporting its contention that the claim failed to provide adequate notice.

Parties

Appellant
Parsons Evergreene, LLC
Respondent Agency
Air Force
Contracting Agency
Air Force
Contract Number
FA8903-04-D-8703
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.