Meltech Corporation, Inc.

Meltech · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · January 16, 2026 · No. ASBCA Nos. 61762, 61764

Summary

This Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals opinion concerns Meltech Corporation, Inc.’s claims for equitable adjustment under a design-build task order for renovation of Building 8609 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The claims arose from unexpected conditions in the hammerhead roof, including an elevated crown, concealed roof layers, parapets, and depressions that required additional demolition, truss modifications, and installation of a new air barrier. The Board states that it sustains the appeal and analyzes the claims under the Type I differing site conditions doctrine.

Holdings

  1. The hammerhead roof's five-inch crown and associated concealed conditions constituted a Type I differing site condition because the conditions indicated by the contract differed materially from those encountered, were reasonably unforeseeable, and were reasonably relied upon by Meltech.
  2. Meltech was entitled to an equitable adjustment for increased costs resulting from the Type I differing site condition, including costs associated with demolition, installation of a new air barrier, and modification of the roof trusses.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the concealed crown, roof depressions, parapet, and multiple roof layers in the hammerhead roof constituted a Type I differing site condition under FAR 52.236-2.
  2. Whether Meltech reasonably relied on the contract documents and pre-bid information indicating that the existing roof could remain in place while the new roof was installed.
  3. Whether Meltech was entitled to an equitable adjustment for the increased costs caused by the differing site conditions.
  4. Whether the conditions alternatively constituted a Type II differing site condition.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (32)

  • Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 1338, 1343-46 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • NDG Constructors, ASBCA No. 57328, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,138 at 172,502(followed)
  • Nova Grp./Tutor-Saliba v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 1, 35 (2022), aff'd, 87 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • P.J. Maffei Bldg. Wrecking Corp. v. United States, 732 F.2d 913, 916 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(followed)
  • Int'l Tech. Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Precision Dynamics, Inc., ASBCA No. 50519, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,071 at 163,922(followed)
  • Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 292 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Hunkin Conkey Constr. Co. v. United States, 461 F.2d 1270, 1272 (Ct. Cl. 1972)(followed)
  • Kinetic Builders, Inc., ASBCA No. 32627, 88-2 BCA ¶ 20,657 at 104,399-400(followed)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…