Contractor Did Not Argue Same Legal Theories in Claim, Appeal; COFC No. 13-626C, Michael Roth & Associates Architects & Planners Inc. v United States

Appeal of the agency’s denial of a request for equitable adjustment is dismissed, where the contractor did not assert the same legal theories for recovery in its claim and appeal, and therefore the contracting officer did not have an opportunity to consider the grounds of the appeal, and where the theory asserted in the appeal failed on its merits, where the contract’s design within funding limitations clause did not require the agency to take any specific course of action after finding that the project would likely exceed the funding limitation, where there was no change to the project and therefore the appellant was not required to perform services it had not agreed to perform at the contact price, and where FAR language limiting architect-engineer services fees to 6 percent of the estimated cost of construction did not mean the contractor was entitled to the full 6 percent.