On September 14, 2026, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the delay portion of an appeal by Hensel Phelps Construction Company (“Hensel Phelps”), finding that Hensel Phelps did indeed include a sum certain in its Claim. See Hensel Phelps Construction Company, ASBCA No. 64327, 2026 WL 3049122 (Sept. 14, 2026).

The Claim and the Government’s Challenge

Hensel Phelps sought $22,050,672 for delay-related general conditions and other direct costs arising from construction of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s Western Currency Facility Expansion Project in Fort Worth, Texas. Its certified claim requested 285 days of compensable delay and included a detailed narrative, a critical-path-method window analysis, exhibits, financial appendices, and subcontractor pass-through claims.

Hensel Phelps attributed the delays principally to an allegedly deficient government design and the Government’s incremental efforts to correct electrical and mechanical design problems during construction. According to the claim, those issues affected interdependent contract line items, caused cascading downstream impacts, and required analysis of the project’s changing critical path.

The Government moved to dismiss the delay portion of the appeal. It argued that the claimed delay was not one unitary claim, but numerous distinct claims—potentially one for each delay event or source—and that each required its own sum certain. Because Hensel Phelps had not allocated its claimed delay days and dollars among those purported subclaims, the Government contended that the delay claim failed as a matter of law.

The Board Denied the Motion

The Board rejected the Government’s effort to subdivide the delay claim at the pleading stage. The governing inquiry is whether the components share the same or related operative facts. If deciding them requires review of the same or related evidence, they constitute one claim. Separate claims exist when they seek different remedies or depend on materially different factual or legal grounds.

Here, the Government did not clearly identify the supposedly distinct claims—or even say consistently how many there were. More importantly, the contractor alleged that the delay events arose from a common source: deficient design documents and the Government’s management of corrections to those deficiencies. The alleged impacts occurred during the same schedule window, affected interconnected work, and required a project-wide critical-path and concurrency analysis. On those allegations, the Board could not conclude that each event was an independent dispute capable of being decided in isolation.

Why the Decision Matters for Delay Claims

Contractors often prepare delay claims for submission to the Government and appeal denials to the boards of contract appeals. These claims commonly involve multiple impacts, changes, and delay events. Yet the extended field-overhead component is often stated as one amount: the applicable daily field-overhead rate multiplied by the compensable delay days.

Hensel Phelps bears directly on that practice. The decision supports presenting one aggregate delay amount when the underlying events are genuinely intertwined and entitlement depends on a common body of operative facts and a unified critical-path analysis. A claim does not necessarily become a collection of separate claims merely because it identifies multiple changes, impacts, or Government actions.

But the decision is not a blanket approval of every aggregated delay claim. The Board denied a motion at an early stage and construed the allegations in the contractor’s favor. If different items rest on unrelated facts, invoke different legal theories, seek different remedies, or can be resolved independently, each may constitute a distinct claim requiring its own sum certain. The Board also cautioned that this issue may be resolved later on the merits—potentially after the limitations period has expired for submitting a corrected claim.

Practical Takeaways

• Explain why the delays are interrelated. Do not rely only on a single bottom-line calculation. Tie the events to their common cause, shared schedule period, interconnected work, and overlapping evidence.
• Use a comprehensive schedule analysis. Show how each asserted Government event affected the critical path and how the analysis addresses contractor-caused and other concurrent delay.
• Make the amount readily ascertainable. State the claimed days, the applicable daily rate(s), the resulting extended field-overhead amount, and any other cost components clearly. Where delay days can be attributed to specific impacts, clearly articulate sub-pricing (e.g., a marked up sum certain for delays in one period of time, a separate marked up sum certain for delays in another period of time, etc.).
• Separate truly distinct claims. When an item depends on unrelated operative facts or seeks different relief, assign it a separate sum certain rather than forcing it into an aggregate demand.
• Preserve alternatives where practicable. Even when the primary position is that the delay is unitary, allocating amounts by window, event, or category can reduce litigation risk if a tribunal later finds distinct subclaims.
• Address pass-through claims expressly. Identify subcontractor amounts and explain how their alleged impacts connect to the prime contractor’s overall delay theory.