1. “Whether the Claims Court erred in dismissing the Complaint which contained well plead facts sufficient to support HDCC’s claims?”
2. “Whether the Claims Court erred in dismissing portion of HDCC’s claims that were not subject to the Motion to Dismiss and not addressed by the parties or the Claims Court?”
3. “Whether the Claims Court erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration of and/or Relief From Order of Dismissal and Motion for Leave to Amend, when the proposed Amended Complaint addressed the perceived deficiencies in the Complaint?”
1. “[W]e agree with the CFC’s conclusion that HDCC has not pled sufficient facts to demonstrate excusable delay regarding its retaining wall construction . . . .”
2. “[W]e . . . disagree that the alleged government delays regarding the Rights of Way (‘ROWs’) delivery and utility relocation related claims, as well as HDCC’s repayment claim, are ripe for granting the government’s motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6). We also conclude that HDCC’s claim that the final ROWs delivered by the government differed from the ROWs as stated in the request for proposals should not have been dismissed.”
3. “Finally, HDCC argues that the CFC erred in its decision to deny HDCC’s motion for reconsideration of and/or relief from the order of dismissal and its motion for leave to amend its complaint. Because we reverse and remand the CFC’s determination on the motion to dismiss, as explained above, we need not address the CFC’s denial of these motions.”
