The Project HDCC was the general contractor for the Lahaina Bypass 1B-2 design-build construction project in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii (the “Project” or “Lahaina Bypass”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. It argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it “bore the risk of increased costs” under the Contract, and “does not plausibly allege any directed or constructive contract changes, or that HDCC performed any uncompensated work outside the scope of its contractually mandated responsibilities.” Def.’s Mot. The Government moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). It believes that it is entitled to an equitable adjustment to the Contract “to compensate HDCC for delays and increased costs incurred as a result of changes in the work.” Am.
HDCC seeks review of the contracting officer’s final decision (“COFD”) denying its claim for an equitable adjustment. § 7101, involving a firm fixed-price, design-build contract (the “Contract”) between Plaintiff Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company (“HDCC”) and the United States Department of Transportation, acting through the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (“CFLHD” or the “Agency”). This is a case under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. McBirney, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant. Michael Charles Zisa, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. 30 In the United States Court of Federal Claims HAWAIIAN DREDGING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC, Plaintiff, No. HAWAIIAN DREDGING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
0 kommentar(er)
