that Beacon had raised its claim too late, Beacon Oil Co., 84-2 B.C.A. (CCH) Para(s) 17,278 (1983) ( Beacon II). Beacon sought relief in the Claims Court, which held that the Board should not have entertained Beacon's 1979 claim under the disputes clause of the contract after Beacon had elected to proceed under the Contract Disputes Act. See Beacon Oil Co. v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 695 (1985) ( Beacon III). Beacon returned to the Board, which disagreed with the Claims Court's ruling on the Board's authority to entertain Beacon's appeal under the disputes clause and again dismissed the appeal on timeliness grounds, Beacon Oil Co., 86-3 B.C.A. (CCH) Para(s) 19,206 (1986) ( Beacon IV). This court then vacated the Board's ruling, holding that Beacon had validly elected to proceed under the Contract Disputes Act, that the Board had no jurisdiction over the case under the disputes clause of the contract, and that, now that the 1979 claim was certified, the case had to be decided under the Contract Disputes Act. Beacon Oil Co. v. United States, 832 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ( Beacon V). On remand, after the Board denied Beacon's motion to consolidate its case with Powerine, the government moved for summary judgment against Beacon on the merits.