Listen to this post

Government contractors pursuing complex delay claims got a helpful reminder from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) this month in the case of Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. & Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p.A. Joint Venture, ASBCA Nos. 64038, 64336, 64428 (July 16, 2026): A claim does not need to be a model of clarity to survive a motion to dismiss — it just needs to give the government enough information to calculate what is owed.

This article provides a summary of this noteworthy case and offers key takeaways for government contractors.

Background

Bahadir Construction Engineering and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro formed a joint venture (BMJV) to build facilities at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar under a $524 million firm-fixed-price contract with the Army Corps of Engineers. BMJV alleged the government’s incomplete and contradictory designs caused extensive delays, and it submitted two certified claims — $66.9 million and $5.2 million — using a “windows analysis” that broke the project timeline into discrete periods and attributed delay days within each window to specific government-caused events (door hardware changes, a Hush House addition, testing and commissioning changes, and various RFI-driven design issues).

The government moved to dismiss, arguing BMJV was really asserting 38 separate claims without a sum certain for each one, and that four of those claims had never been presented to the contracting officer in the first place.

The Board’s Reasoning

The board denied the motion on both grounds.

With respect to the first ground, the FAR requires a claim to state “a sum certain,” but a single certified claim can bundle multiple legally distinct claims — and when it does, each one needs its own sum certain. The government argued BMJV’s claim was really 38 sub-claims in a trench coat. The board disagreed with how the government sliced it: Because BMJV organized its claims by delay window, and each window’s dollar figure could be calculated from the supporting schedules, that organizational choice satisfied the pleading requirement. The board contrasted this with A4 Construction Co., where the contractor organized its claim by individual event and then failed to state sums certain for several of those events — a defect the board would not overlook just because the contractor later argued all the sub-claims shared common facts and legal theories.

The takeaway: The government’s own framing (38 claims) did not control. The claimant’s framing (five to six windows) was reasonable enough to survive dismissal, even though the board acknowledged it might later conclude, on the merits, that separate claims exist within those windows.

Second, the government also seized on BMJV’s use of the word “about” in describing how many delay days were attributable to testing-and-commissioning changes within one window. Older board precedent held that “approximately $X” claims failed the sum certain test. The board here found that framing beside the point; BMJV stated a firm sum certain for the window as a whole and merely estimated how to allocate delay days within that window between two causes. Estimating an internal allocation is different from failing to commit to a bottom-line number.

On jurisdiction, the government argued four issues (walkway lighting, concrete walkways, fuel truck unloading areas, and trench drainpipes) were raised for the first time in BMJV’s complaint. The board found these items were already referenced in the certified claim and its supporting schedules. BMJV had explained it was not seeking separate recovery for them — they were offered as context for the broader delay narrative, not as stand-alone claims requiring separate CO presentment.

Why This Matters for Contractors

Complex delay claims involving windows analyses, fragnets, and critical-path methodology are inherently dense, and the government will often look for ways to carve a single claim into dozens of pieces, each supposedly missing a sum certain.

This decision confirms a few practical points:

  • First, how you organize your claim matters. Structuring a delay claim around discrete time windows — with a calculable dollar figure for each — gives the board a workable unit for the sum certain analysis, even if dozens of individual events or RFIs feed into each window’s total.
  • Second, precision has limits. Contractors can use good faith estimates to allocate a known total among contributing causes without forfeiting the sum certain for the claim as a whole.
  • Third, a motion to dismiss is not a merits ruling. The board was explicit that it might ultimately agree with the government that BMJV’s claim comprises multiple distinct legally claims — that fight simply is not resolved at the pleading stage. Contractors should expect the sum certain and claim-splitting arguments to resurface later in litigation, even after clearing a motion to dismiss.
  • Finally, keep your claim schedules complete. The board relied heavily on BMJV’s supporting Appendix B (window analyses) and Appendix C (prolongation cost calculations) to conclude a sum certain was derivable — thin narrative claims without the underlying schedules to back them up would not have fared as well.

If you have any questions about the foregoing or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Aron Beezley or Owen Salyers.