Rustler Construction, Inc. v. District of Columbia

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed cross-petitions arising from a District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board decision concerning a roadway improvement contract. The court affirmed the CAB’s award of $155,481.70 plus interest to Rustler Construction for additional and out-of-sequence work, while rejecting damages based on overall project delay because Rustler failed to establish the critical path and the extent of delay. The court also upheld the CAB’s use of the jury verdict method to calculate damages.

Holdings

1. A contractor seeking damages for overall delay must prove that government-caused delays affected activities on the critical path and must establish the extent to which those delays affected completion of the overall project. Rustler failed to make that showing.
2. The CAB's calculation of compensation for additional tasks and out-of-sequence work was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
3. A contractor's failure to demonstrate that it was unable to keep better records does not necessarily preclude use of the jury verdict method when the contractor proves clear injury, no more reliable method of calculating damages is available, and the evidence permits a fair and reasonable approximation.
4. The jury verdict method is not limited to resolving conflicting testimony; it may also be used when gaps in the evidence or an inability to establish precise costs prevent exact calculation, provided the governing requirements are met.
5. The same preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to proving the amount of increased costs at the quantum stage as applies to entitlement; the inability to prove damages with mathematical exactitude does not create a lower burden of proof.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rustler proved entitlement to and the amount of damages for overall project delay and field overhead.
2. Whether the CAB's awards for additional tasks and out-of-sequence work were supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the CAB could use the jury verdict method to calculate damages despite Rustler's failure to provide actual costs or cost estimates broken down by task.
4. Whether use of the jury verdict method is limited to resolving conflicting testimony.

Disposition

affirmed