Contractor Must File Claim for Time Extension or it Cannot Assert Government Caused Delay in Default Termination

A contractor cannot assert government caused delays in a subsequent default termination, unless it has filed a claim for a time extension.  Windamir Dev., Inc., ASBCA No. 63461, Dec. 21, 2023. Windamir sought more than $1 million in alleged damages in its challenge of the government’s default of its contract.  But most of its appeal was dismissed.

Windamir received an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract in 2019 for construction work at naval stations in Florida and Georgia.  Two years after award, the Navy issued a notice of noncompliance alleging there were excessive amounts of organics in fill material soils used to construct a building pad in Georgia. In December 2021, Windamir filed a claim stating the material was satisfactory, not unsatisfactory. In August 2022 the Navy terminated the contract for default citing the unsatisfactory materials it previously notified Windamir about, and alleging that the contractor had failed to meet the contract completion date of May 4, 2022.

Windamir noticed an appeal, claiming it was appealing from a denial of its 2021 claim as well as from the termination for default. The complaint sought:

  • Conversion of the termination to one for convenience because the soil was satisfactory;
  • Declaratory relief that certain specifications were incorrectly interpreted;
  • Damages of $1.2 million; and
  • Breach of contract.

The Board noted that Windamir presented allegations of government-cause project delay as an affirmative defense.  However, the Board noted that a contractor contesting a default termination due to excusable delays must submit a claim for a time extension before appealing to the Board, otherwise the Board lacks jurisdiction—and Windamir had not done so.  The Board dismissed the allegations of government caused delay.  The Board stated it would consider other potential affirmative defenses at a hearing on the appeal

Windamir requested declaratory relief that the Navy had interpreted certain specifications incorrectly.  Because the contract was now terminated, there was no longer any live dispute and declaratory relief would not be appropriate.

Finally, since Windamir had not requested any monetary relief/damages in its claim to the contracting officer, the Board lacked jurisdiction and those requests were dismissed.

Takeaway – Government Caused Delays

Once again, proper claim procedures must be followed when seeking monetary relief (i.e. claimed amounts must be submitted to the CO-not submitted in a complaint to the Board for the first time), and government caused delays must be claimed before at the CO level if there is a default termination if it is to be used to defend the default.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:
Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at

What is the Public Contracting Institute?

The Public Contracting Institute is an instructor-owned government contracts training company.  PCI offers regular live virtual trainings on government contracts topics, an innovative eLearning program, and offer customized training to government contractors and agencies.

Learn more about government contracting, the ASBCA, and claims, by reading these articles:


Related Post

Snooze and Lose

Snooze and Lose

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) reminded the government that if it failed to raise jurisdictional issues (namely a sum certain requirement that should have been in the claim) before a hearing on the merits, it forfeited its right to...

No Clarifications Required

No Clarifications Required

Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 15.306 deals with “Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals;” it is important to understand what is or is not required after receipt of proposals (but before selection for award), specifically pertaining to...


The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 USC §§ 7101-7109, requires both a claim and a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision on a claim prior to making an appeal to a Board of Contract Appeals.  FAR 2.101 defines a claim as “a written demand or written assertion by one...