ASBCA 64033

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Petition of - ) ) Relyant Global LLC ) ASBCA No. 64033-PET ) Under Contract No. W912GB-21-D-0020 ) Delivery Order No. W912GB-21-F-0244 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE PETITIONER: James H. Price, Esq. Michael R. Franz, Esq. Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C. Knoxville, TN APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney David B. Jerger, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Europe ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1(a)(5) DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO ISSUE DECISION The contractor filed, under Rule 1(a)(5), a request for an order directing the contracting officer (CO) to render a decision on an October 11, 2024, certified claim in the amount of €7,351,056.66. The contractor requested that the CO issue a decision immediately. The government has advised that a final decision on the claim will be issued by July 25, 2025. We find this date unreasonable and direct the contracting officer to issue a decision by May 27, 2025. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE PETITION 1. On September 16, 2021, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or the government) awarded Delivery Order No. W912GB-21-F-0244 under Contract No. W912GB-21-D-0020 to Relyant Global LLC (Relyant) for the construction of jet fuel storage facilities at Campia Turzii Air base, Romania (pet. resp. at 1). 2. On July 4, 2022, Relyant submitted a variance request to the contracting officer to use alternate material due to alleged design flaws, most consequential, the government’s requirements for lightweight fill material and #57 stone design specifications that were unavailable in Romania. The request was denied. Ultimately, five requests were made and rejected. Sometime after April 26, 2023, a variance request was eventually granted. (Pet., ex. 1 * at 1, 3-5) 3. On October 4, 2024, Relyant submitted a claim for declaratory relief, essentially requesting a termination for convenience, which was appealed as a deemed denial and designated ASBCA No. 64032 (pet. resp. at 2; ASBCA No. 64032, notice of appeal at 1). 4. On October 11, 2024, Relyant submitted a certified claim to the CO for €7,351,056.66. The claim is seven pages long with two attachments (attachment A is 20 pages and appears to document costs associated with the claim; attachment B is a “Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data” signed by Relyant’s Chief Financial Officer). USACE responded on November 18, 2024, stating the CO will issue a final decision by July 25, 2025. (Pet. resp. at 1-2; pet., ex. 1) 5. On December 10, 2024, Relyant filed the present petition requesting the Board direct USACE to “immediately” issue a COFD (pet. at 1; pet. resp. at 3). USACE responded, requesting the COFD be issued on the original proposed date of July 25, 2025 (total of 287 days - 9 months, 2 weeks) (pet. resp. at 1, 5). 6. The contract was terminated for default on December 27, 2024 (pet. resp. at 3). DECISION When a CO receives a certified claim over $100,000, the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, requires that within sixty days of receipt of the claim, the CO shall (a) issue a decision or (b) notify the contractor of the time within which a decision will be issued. 41. U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2). The CDA also requires that the decision of the CO on a contractor claim “shall be issued within a reasonable time . . . taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of information in support of the claim provided by the contractor.” 41. U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3). Under the CDA, “[a] contractor may request the tribunal concerned to direct a contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time, as determined by the tribunal concerned, in the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting officer.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4). Board Rule 1(a)(5) provides that “[i]n lieu of filing a notice of appeal under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this Rule, the contractor may * “Pet., ex.