E&iglobal Energy Services, Inc. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
E&I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1286
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00244-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
Decided: October 17, 2025
______________________
J OSEPH WHITCOMB, Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC, Lake-
wood, CO, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
D AVID M ICHAEL K ERR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, D EBORAH ANN BYNUM ,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 1 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 2
D YK, Circuit Judge.
E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. (“E&I Global”) ap-
peals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal
Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s motion
for summary judgment. E&I Glob. Energy Servs., Inc.
v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 206, 209 (2023) (“Claims
Court Decision”). The case arose from an E&I Global con-
tract with the United States Department of Energy’s West-
ern Area Power Administration (“WAPA”) to construct a
high-voltage electricity substation. WAPA terminated the
contract for default for failure to complete construction in
a timely manner. E&I Global brought suit in the Claims
Court, claiming excusable delay and seeking conversion of
the termination for default into termination for conven-
ience. The Claims Court sustained WAPA’s decision to ter-
minate the contract for default, finding that E&I Global’s
contract performance failures were not caused by excusa-
ble delays. Id. at 209. For the reasons explained below, we
affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further pro-
ceedings.
BACKGROUND
We have recounted many of the relevant facts in this
case in a previous decision, E&I Glob. Energy Servs., Inc.
v. United States, No. 2022-1472, 2022 WL 17998224
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 30, 2022) (nonprecedential) (“Federal Cir-
cuit Remand”). Briefly stated, the facts are that in June
2015, WAPA solicited bids to construct a high-voltage elec-
tricity substation in South Dakota. In September 2015,
WAPA awarded the contract to Isolux Corsan, LLC
(“Isolux”). The contract required Isolux to provide all labor,
materials, and equipment necessary to construct the sub-
station. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and the In-
surance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
(collectively, the “Sureties”) issued bonds guaranteeing
that the project would be completed and that Isolux’s un-
fulfilled labor and materials obligations to third parties
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 2 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 3
incurred in the performance of the project would be paid.
WAPA terminated the contract with Isolux for default in
December 2016. The Sureties assumed responsibility for
performance and outstanding Isolux debts.
In March 2017, the Sureties employed
E&C Global, LLC to complete the project, entering into a
“Completion Agreement” under which E&C Global, LLC
was named as the “Completion Contractor” and agreed to
complete the project, and the Sureties agreed to pay a firm-
fixed price of $5,428,625.69 (the “completion price”).1
J.A. 434–36. The appellant in this case, E&I Global (a dif-
ferent entity than E&C Global, LLC), was named as a sub-
contractor in the Completion Agreement.
WAPA subsequently executed a new contract (the
“E&I Global contract”) with E&I Global as the prime con-
tractor.2 On September 12, 2017, WAPA formally author-
ized E&I Global to start work on the substation under the
E&I Global contract. This authorization provided that
E&I Global was required to complete construction of the
substation by April 3, 2018.
E&I Global alleges that it immediately ran into delays
with the project. According to E&I Global, Isolux owed
money to the subcontractors and suppliers on the project,
and those subcontractors and suppliers refused to continue
1 Our previous decision in this case did not turn on
any difference between E&I Global and E&C Global, LLC.
We noted that “[t]he parties treat[ed] E&I [Global] and
E&C [Global, LLC] . . . as identical” and so “we d[id] as
well.” Federal Circuit Remand at *1 n.1. We did not decide
whether the entities were the same.
2 The Sureties remained responsible for paying
Isolux’s subcontractors and suppliers for work performed,
or supplies purchased, before E&I Global took over the pro-
ject.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 3 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 4
to work on the project until they were paid past due
amounts. Though the Sureties were required to pay
Isolux’s project-related debts, they allegedly failed to fulfill
those obligations. To complete the project, E&I Global al-
leged that it was required to pay the former Isolux suppli-
ers and subcontractors what they claimed to be owed by
Isolux. E&I Global asserts that these payments strained
its finances and that as a result of these difficulties it
missed the contract deadline. On April 3, 2018, the sched-
uled completion date, construction was incomplete.
In May 2018, WAPA terminated the E&I Global con-
tract for default for failure to complete construction in a
timely manner. On October 1, 2018, E&I Global submitted
a certified Contracts Disputes Act claim seeking $3.6 mil-
lion in damages and reversal of its default termination.
The WAPA contracting officer denied E&I Global’s claim.
E&I Global then brought suit in the Claims Court, seeking
damages and conversion of the termination for default into
termination for convenience.
The Claims Court rejected E&I Global’s claims. The
Claims Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss
several claims, granted the government’s motion for sum-
mary judgment as to others, and granted the government's
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to E&I Global’s
claim that the government improperly terminated the con-
tract for default. Federal Circuit Remand at *2. Those rul-
ings were appealed to this court. We affirmed many
aspects of the Claims Court’s decision, but we reversed its
dismissal of E&I Global’s claim that the government im-
properly terminated the contract for default because the
actions of other government contractors (i.e., the Sureties)
caused the delay and remanded for further proceedings.
Id. at *1.
On remand, E&I Global continued to argue that the
Sureties’ failure to pay Isolux’s debts to subcontractors and
equipment suppliers led to excusable delay, because
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 4 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 5
E&I Global instead paid those debts and, as a result, was
financially unable to complete the project in a timely fash-
ion. E&I Global also argued its delay was excusable be-
cause the government allegedly failed to timely deliver
wiring schematics for the construction project. The govern-
ment moved for summary judgment, arguing that the un-
disputed facts demonstrated that E&I Global’s
performance failures were not caused by excusable delay
because E&I Global was not the “Completion Contractor”
in the agreement with the Sureties, E&I Global was not
forced to pay Isolux’s debts, any delays caused by the sub-
contractors or the absence of equipment were foreseeable
and controllable, and E&I Global’s missing schematic ar-
gument was not properly raised. The government provided
no declarations to support its motion. As to the issues with
the subcontractors, the only factual material that the gov-
ernment presented in its motion was the testimony of
E&I Global’s owner that E&I Global was aware of the sub-
contractors’ dissatisfaction, and E&I Global’s admissions
in interrogatory responses that the subcontractors threat-
ened to cease performance that E&I Global had not tried to
hire other subcontractors instead of paying the original
subcontractors. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 18–19, Claims
Court Decision (July 21, 2023) (No. 1:19-cv-00244), Dkt.
No. 117.
The Claims Court granted the government’s motion for
summary judgment. The court determined that the
E&I Global’s excuse was “irrational and [could not] form
the basis for excusable delay” for two reasons. Claims
Court Decision at 214. First, E&I Global was not the “Com-
pletion Contractor” with the Sureties, and the Sureties had
no obligation to E&I to pay the subcontractors. Second, the
court found that E&I Global made no effort to find a new
contractor and “provide[d] no evidence that replacing the
subcontractors would actually have been more costly.” Id.
at 213. As to the equipment, the Claims Court found that
the absence of equipment was foreseeable. The Claims
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 5 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 6
Court also determined that E&I Global’s schematics argu-
ment was waived because the issue was not timely raised
to WAPA. The court accordingly “c[ould] find no excusable
delay that hindered the completion of the subject contract,”
and therefore held that “WAPA’s decision to terminate
E&I [Global] for default was justified.” Id. at 217.
E&I Global timely appealed the decision of the Claims
Court.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Frankel v. United States, 842 F.3d 1246, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Rule 56(a) of the Claims Court provides that “[t]he
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “On
a motion for summary judgment, ‘all evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
and all reasonable factual inferences should be drawn in
favor of the nonmoving party.’” Frankel, 842 F.3d at 1249–
50 (quoting Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States,
16 F.3d 1197, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We conclude that the
3 We note that in a separate action, E&I Global
brought suit in district court against one of the Sureties,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”), alleging
breach of contract and other claims. See Complaint, E&I
Glob. Energy Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 4:20-
cv-04033, (D.S.D. Feb. 21, 2020), Dkt. No. 1. The Eighth
Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Liberty
was not liable for breach of contract because the Comple-
tion Agreement that it entered listed E&C Global, LLC as
the completion contractor, and Liberty did not make an en-
forceable promise to E&I Global. See E&I Glob. Energy
Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 134 F.4th 504, 514
(8th Cir. 2025).
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 6 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 7
Claims Court erred in granting summary judgment as to
the subcontractor delay. We therefore vacate and remand
for further proceedings as to that issue but affirm in other
respects.
I
Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), if
a contractor is terminated for default, and its delay is later
deemed excusable, the termination will effectively be
deemed to have been “issued for the convenience of the
Government.” FAR § 52.249-10(c).4 FAR 52.249-10(b)(1)
governs the requirements for excusable delay. Under that
provision, a contractor “must show that [its] delay resulted
from ‘unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without
the fault or negligence of the Contractor.’” Sauer Inc.
v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting
FAR 52.249-10(b)(1)). A contractor must also “prove that
it took reasonable action to perform the contract notwith-
standing the occurrence of such excuse,” and the “unfore-
seeable cause must delay the overall contract completion;
i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Id.
(quoting Int’l Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.2d 496,
510 (Ct. Cl. 1981)). The regulations provide several exam-
ples of excusable delays, among them “delays of subcon-
tractors or suppliers . . . arising from unforeseeable causes
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of
both the [prime] Contractor and the subcontractors or sup-
pliers,” and delays caused by “acts of another Contractor in
the performance of a contract with the Government.”
FAR 52.249-10(b)(1)(iii), (xi).
4 The FAR are codified in Title 48 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations. For brevity, we refer to the FAR without
corresponding C.F.R. citations. For example, FAR 52.230-
2 corresponds to 48 C.F.R. § 52.230-2.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 7 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 8
We see two errors in the Claims Court’s decision grant-
ing summary judgment to the government on the issue of
excusable delay with respect to the subcontractors.
A
First, we conclude that the Claims Court erred in de-
termining that the Sureties’ failure to pay Isolux’s debts
could not be a source of delay because E&I Global was not
the “Completion Contractor” on the Completion Agreement
with the Sureties. Claims Court Decision at 214.
This is incorrect. As noted previously, the FAR provide
examples of excusable delays, including delays caused by
“acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract
with the Government.” FAR 52.249-10(b)(1)(xi). The Sure-
ties were contractors with the government under the bonds
and tender agreement. The government has not identified,
and the Claims Court did not cite, any case requiring a con-
tractor to be in privity with the other contractor for such a
delay to be excused. Indeed, the caselaw is to the contrary.
See, e.g., Envirocon, Inc., AGBCA No. 81-125-3, 81-2 B.C.A.
¶ 15268 (Aug. 10, 1981) (holding that government’s termi-
nation for default for contractor’s failure to perform in a
timely manner must be converted to termination for con-
venience where first contractor’s timely performance de-
pended on government’s proper irrigation of the site and
irrigation was delayed by second contractor, who was not
in privity with first contractor); Mod. Home Mfg. Corp.,
ASBCA No. 6523, 66-1 B.C.A. ¶ 5367 (Feb. 4, 1966) (ex-
plaining that first contractor was entitled to time extension
where delay of second contractor in preparing the contract
site impaired first contractor’s ability to perform on time,
despite fact that first and second contractors were not in
privity with each other); Steven W. Feldman, Government
Contract Guidebook § 29:16 (4th ed. 2024) (recognizing
that the “acts of another contractor” type of delay “com-
monly arises in construction contracts where the govern-
ment enters into agreements with several contractors for
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 8 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 9
concurrent or sequential performance at the same site,”
and “[i]n this situation, the delay of one contractor may af-
fect the ability of another contractor to perform on time”).
We see nothing in the FAR provisions suggesting a privity
requirement, and we hold there is no such requirement.
Nor did the government demonstrate on summary
judgment that the subcontractor issues were foreseeable.
The Claims Court determined that, here, “the issues with
the subcontractors [were not] unforeseeable,” reasoning
that E&I Global knew, before it acquired its contract with
the government, about the subcontractors’ unhappiness
and that it was unreasonable for E&I Global to “expect the
temperaments to immediately cool.” Claims Court Deci-
sion at 213. However, the representation by the Sureties
in the Completion Agreement that the Sureties had ratified
or were in the process of ratifying agreements with these
subcontractors raised at least a genuine question as to
whether the delays were foreseeable. See J.A. 438 (“[The]
Sureties have executed, or are in the process of executing,
certain Ratification Agreements with Principal’s subcon-
tractors and/or vendors previously utilized on the Pro-
ject . . . .”).5
5 The government points out that E&I Global con-
ceded that, at the time E&I Global took over as the prime
contractor on the project, it knew “that the Sureties . . .
were making (reluctant) payments pursuant to their bond
obligations” and that the Sureties were “taking a long time
to get their payments out to everybody on the bond claim.”
Appellee’s Br. 10 (quoting Pl.’s Resp. Opp’n Summ. J. 11,
Claims Court Decision (Aug. 25, 2023) (No. 1:19-cv-00244),
Dkt. No. 119). But this hardly suggests that E&I Global
was aware that once the Completion Agreement and
E&I Global contract were executed, any delay would con-
tinue and there was evidence to the contrary, as noted in
the text.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 9 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 10
B
The Claims Court erred in a second aspect. The Claims
Court granted summary judgment in the government’s fa-
vor because it determined that E&I Global did not take
“reasonable action to perform the contract” because it made
“[n]o attempts . . . to locate alternative subcontractors and
suppliers” and did not provide “evidence that replacing the
subcontractors would actually have been more costly.”
Claims Court Decision at 213.
At the summary judgment phase, the government, as
the moving party, bore the burden of demonstrating the ab-
sence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But the govern-
ment presented no evidence that E&I Global’s only reason-
able course of action was to hire other subcontractors.
While E&I Global conceded that it did not try to hire other
contractors, that concession alone does not mean there is
not a genuine issue of material fact as to the reasonable-
ness of E&I Global’s actions. The government simply pre-
sented attorney argument that “[E&I Global’s] inaction
standing alone necessitates rejection of the subcontractor-
based aspect of its excusable delay claim.” Def.’s Reply
Supp. Summ. J. 10–11, Claims Court Decision, (Sept. 8,
2023) (No. 1:19-cv-00244), Dkt. No. 120. The government
offered no legal support for its view.
Our previous decision in this case provides no support
for the government’s theory. There, we only explained that
“finding alternative subcontractors and suppliers” was one
example of a possible action that E&I Global may have
taken instead of paying the subcontractors and suppliers.
Federal Circuit Remand at *5. We did not hold this action
was essential to reasonableness. See id.
Moreover, while E&I Global did not attempt to hire
other subcontractors, there is other evidence in the sum-
mary judgment record that may speak to reasonableness
including that the Completion Agreement encouraged the
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 10 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 11
use of Isolux’s subcontractors, J.A. 438; that E&I Global
was under a tight schedule to finish construction on the
substation, see App. to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 46, Claims
Court Decision (July 21, 2023) (No. 1:19-cv-00244), Dkt.
No. 117-1; that at least some of the suppliers were the only
local option, id. at 38, 43; and that E&I Global was suffer-
ing complaints and harassment by the subcontractors, see
Pl.’s Resp. Opp’n Summ. J. 9, 11, Claims Court Decision
(Aug. 25, 2023) (No. 1:19-cv-00244), Dkt. No. 119. In short,
the government did not show there was an absence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to these factors and the
Claims Court erred in granting summary judgment in the
government’s favor.
These two errors undermine the Claims Court’s grant
of summary judgment as to the subcontractor issues and
necessitate vacatur. We do not suggest that E&I Global
has demonstrated excusable delay as a matter of law or
could prevail at trial. Whether E&I Global can establish
that it is entitled to relief must await further proceedings
in the Claims Court.
II
We briefly address two of E&I Global’s remaining ar-
guments. We conclude the Claims Court did not err in ei-
ther respect.
First, E&I Global argues that its delay was excusable
because it arose from Isolux’s failure to provide certain
pieces of equipment. The Claims Court correctly deter-
mined that there was no genuine issue of material fact that
these equipment issues were foreseeable and therefore did
not excuse delay. Claims Court Decision at 214–17. The
Claims Court relied on undisputed evidence showing that
E&I Global was aware that there was no documentation
that Isolux ordered most of the equipment at issue and
E&I Global was aware that the other equipment was miss-
ing from the worksite. On appeal, E&I Global has not
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 11 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 12
shown error in the Claims Court’s determination.6 Nor has
it shown error with respect to alleged representations by
the Sureties.7
6 Before the Claims Court, E&I Global argued that
its delay was caused by needing to fund unforeseeable ex-
penses, including the provision of nine pieces of “missing
equipment” that Isolux allegedly ordered, but did not pay
for, prior to its termination. Claims Court Decision at 214–
15. E&I Global alleged that it was not foreseeable that it
would have been responsible for paying for the equipment
because, under the Completion Agreement, the Sureties
were responsible for paying for “materials ordered by, but
not paid by, [Isolux] prior to the date of [the Completion]
Agreement.” Claims Court Decision at 215 (first alteration
in original) (quoting J.A. 436). As to seven of the nine
pieces of equipment, the Claims Court found that the un-
disputed evidence showed that E&I Global knew or should
have known that Isolux had never ordered the equipment
in the first place, and so the Sureties had no obligation to
pay for those items under the Completion Agreement. As
to the other two pieces of equipment, the Claims Court
found that E&I Global knew that they were missing three
months before the Completion Contract was executed, de-
spite the equipment order having been approved five
months previously, and so E&I Global could not rely on the
provision of that equipment as excusing its delay.
7 On appeal, E&I Global also argues that its delay
was excusable because it was caused by E&I Global’s reli-
ance on representations made by Mr. Mattingly, a repre-
sentative of one of the Sureties, as to the allegedly missing
equipment. Specifically, E&I Global argues that Mr. Mat-
tingly represented to E&I Global that the expense of one of
the nine pieces of missing equipment, see supra n.6, was
“well below what E&I [Global] initially proposed”; that
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 12 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 13
Second, E&I Global argues its delay was excusable be-
cause WAPA was negligent and did not timely deliver wir-
ing schematics that were necessary for E&I Global to
perform work on control board and outdoor wiring at the
substation. The Claims Court properly determined that
the schematics argument was forfeited because it was not
raised within the time period required by the FAR. Claims
Court Decision at 217. Under FAR 52.249-10(b)(2), a con-
tractor must, “within 10 days from the beginning of any de-
lay . . . notif[y] the Contracting Office in writing of the
causes of the delay.” E&I Global first raised the issue of
delay due to the schematics over two thousand days after
it received the schematics. The Claims Court did not err in
deeming the untimeliness argument waived.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the grant of sum-
mary judgment as to the equipment and schematics issues.
We vacate the grant of summary judgment as to the
“there was other actual missing equipment that was al-
leged ordered [by Isolux] and approved but was not shipped
because of lack of payment”; and that “Mr. Mattingly
falsely assured E&I [Global] that these ordered and ap-
proved items were paid for.” Appellant’s Br. 8 n.2.
E&I Global does not appear to have raised these argu-
ments to the Claims Court. E&I Global raised related neg-
ligent misrepresentation claims in its district court case
against one of the Sureties, but it fails to identify where it
argued to the Claims Court that Mr. Mattingly’s assur-
ances or representations contributed to excusable delay.
We decline to consider the arguments for the first time on
appeal. Additionally, E&I Global fails to identify what
“other actual missing equipment” is at issue beyond the
nine pieces of equipment addressed by the Claims Court.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 13 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 13 of 14 --

E& I GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. US 14
subcontractor issues and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND
REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to appellant.
Case: 24-1286 Document: 38 Page: 14 Filed: 10/17/2025

-- 14 of 14 --