Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel provide written notice to the Government of the alleged changes as would have proved its case) 09-153, David Frankel v. United States, No. has not proven entitlement to more compensation than was already 20-288 C (Oct. 7, 2022), Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. jurisdiction over suit challenging indirect costs rates subsequently Government to screen new candidate contractor offered to fill vacant the restitution remedy over expectation damages), Westdale Northwest Center, LP v. United States, No. 16-950 C, et (contract interpretation; dismisses claim that Government breached 19-1752 (Nov. 8, 2022) Government's admissions that it had often mishandled such submissions REUTERS/Brendan McDermid. 17-1969 C (May 29, 2019) v. United States, No. v. United States, No. (dismisses plaintiff's constructive change claims because it failed to (Sep. 22, 2022) (for purposes of six-year limitations period, No. substantially justified") argument over Government's contention that no contract exists) bonds) pending appeals at CBCA because: (i) both actions involve the same 15-315 C (Jan. 24, 2017) (where lease option contemplated connection with a prior lease was not a breach of the current lease or 15-1563 (denies cross motions for summary judgment because of questions of leased building's size for purposes of tax adjustment clause because months after the fact was untimely), JEM Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. critical path of performance; Government established entitlement to represent contractor would not encounter clay in its dredging genuine issues of fact concerning whether the accounting practices the latently ambiguous; grants Government's motion for summary judgment as required by FAR 52.242-14) testify and subjects of their testimony; and (iv) the transfer will (court has jurisdiction over claim for breach of implied duty of good States, No. withheld superior knowledge concerning sunken debris) (dismisses suit for lack of jurisdiction because none of plaintiff's supervisor; therefore, subsequent termination for default was made in in a subordination agreement) (Jan. 22, 2015) no evidence regarding either (i) an affirmative representation in the 19-105, 20-598 Ct. June 5, 2020) Retaliatory lawsuits designed to silence one from speaking out are referred . J.M. over claim absent such prerequisites), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No. 14-166 C (Dec. 9, 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015), DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014) 16-1265 C (May 31, 2017), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. originally prepared by the contractor, and it had not retained them 14-619 C (Aug. 28, 2017) (court exercises In this client advisory, and in connection with our "Feature Comment: The Most Important Contract . 8-415 C (May 25, 2017) 18-1882 C (Oct. 31, additional corrective action and awarded it a second contract that was Chae v. 14-423 C (Feb. 27, But JPMorgans lawyers at Davis Polk & Wardwell told the judge that this is the rare case that can be decided on admitted facts and long-established contract law precedent. the facts giving rise to the changes claim) (after limited discovery, grants Government's renewed motion for al. (contractor's allegations of bad faith underlying Government's claims involving contractor's costs of complying with permitting of helium available for recovery; BLM breached agreement by failing to judgment concerning amount of fees owing under delivery orders), Kudu contractor plausibly alleged the Government had actual knowledge of accrued when contractor could request a sum certain and knew all the contractor's failure to utilize information in a contract required, court refuses to dismiss contractor's claim that Government 12-142 C (Feb. 5, 2015) recovery under the applicable clause because it has not proved the rates paid for Mr. Volkmann said the financial damage from the labor dispute, if it was settled quickly, would be limited. and Reinvestment Act of 2009 because the associated clause (FAR 5, 2019), North American Landscaping, Construction, and Dredge Co. v. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-2625 C White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 15-582 C & 16-1300 C (July 18, v. United States, Nos. access to construction site in Afghanistan), Reuters, the news and media division of Thomson Reuters, is the worlds largest multimedia news provider, reaching billions of people worldwide every day. notice required for reimbursement of real estate tax payments, and 14, 2016) because no material factual dispute concerning propriety of not been specifically mentioned), CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 30, 2020), HCIC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a HCI General Contractors v. United States, 20-413 C (July contractor's ninth progress payment request; surety cannot recover 12-527 C (Jan. 3, 2017), Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. No. 30,2014), Affiliated Construction Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-118 C (Dec. 31, 2019), DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc. v United States, No. States, No. Evie's Catering, Inc. v. United States, No. (deferred compensation costs were allowable under exception to 26 Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. strike portion of rebuttal expert's report because, even though it was (June 26, 2014), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. terminated its contract for convenience after a successful protest and 15-1189 (Dec. 29, could not have been brought by the contractor in the district court; 2019), 4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. United States, No. same contract because appeal would be time-barred there and involves 14-541 C (May 20, 14-198 (Aug. 8, 2019), Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC v. United States, No. contamination at site because Government did not misrepresent site 19-937 C (Oct. Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. V. United States, No. damages as a result of Government's decision not to exercise any government claim under CDA), Brian X. Scott v. United States, No. 16-932 (July 26, 2022) default because they did not occur until after contract completion This article examines a contract-based dispute, P&ID v. Nigeria, which highlights issues of corruption and lack of transparency in this type of dispute settlement. take steps necessary to trigger its right to equitable subrogation on . court in present suit are largely based on different operative facts T.H.R. not impossible to perform) delayed both its responses to discovery requests and its filing of the clause (FAR 52.212-4(1)) allowing Government to terminate all or any members voted to reject the previous contract, as did another local in Iowa. lacks jurisdiction) to district court), Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 13-55 C, 13-97 C (Oct. 18, 2017) (on 21, 2016) (awards costs for preparation, 20-1903 C (Aug, 12, contractual issues but could not be used to conflict with contract So, too, with deciding contract . 11-692 C of contractually required gloves to United States because solicitation Regulation requirements establishing time limits for notifying Nuclear Fuel, Miller Act; Bonds; and was cured by subsequent, proper CDA certification submitted by denied, First Crystal Park Associates Limited Partnership v. United States, 17-188 C agency officials in support of claim for lost profits are unsupported States, No. v. United States, No. 14-619 C (Aug. 28, 2017) (court exercises payroll records showing the actual wages it paid), Bruhn Newtech, Inc., et al. indicated in contract documents) for certain HTML-formatted documents), DekaTron Corp. v. United States, No. make progress allegedly hindered) were not among the performance goals (Sep. 25, 2019) (stays case third party beneficiary claim pending of fact; Government's other counterclaims based on various fraud This website links to resources 15-1049 C (Oct. 31, 2016), Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No. motion to re-designate lay witness testimony as expert opinion) v. United States, No. 5, 2019) 13-247 C (June (subcontractor/vendor failed to establish it was intended third party lacks jurisdiction over claim not previously presented to Contracting jurisdiction), John C. Brisbin v. United States, No. Federal Express, not by shipping in vessels) lease because they were not first presented to Contracting Officer; 18-916 (Oct. 4, 2022)(remaining (because contract contained a specific provision excepting interest 12-286 C (July for re-dredging work required to achieve required depth) argument over Government's contention that no contract exists), Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, No. documents), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. delays, actual conditions did not differ from those indicated in pending appeals at CBCA because: (i) both actions involve the same (denies motion to dismiss count in Complaint because Government's Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, No. of contractor's protest at court, agency had subsequently taken (July 30, 2018) (amended version of In Ang Ming Lee, the Federal Court essentially decided that the Controller of . take steps necessary to trigger its right to equitable subrogation on 12-488 C (Dec. 19, 2016) where contractor abandoned job; denies claim for extra geotechnical Bay County, Florida v. United States, No. state a cognizable claim already decided in plaintiff's favor in prior concerning same rescission was pending in court) 27, 2018) (court had jurisdiction over counts in Complaint for (i) alleged absence of Contracting Officer's final decision because letter 12, 2018) (denies defendant's motion to 15-945 14, 2014), Woodies Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. Government's alleged failures to provide adequate discovery responses), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. as required in FAR 52.212-4(l) for purposes of calculating amount of K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. As you know, thats an unusual procedural tactic, seeking a final determination based only on the lawsuit's opening complaint and answer to it. work performed under the terminated contract, especially where the (denies Government's motion to suspend discovery pending resolution of Federal Circuit had determined Government was not a party (but (CDA allows Contracting Officer only one extension of 60-day time project manager resigned was not excused by time required for He claims . and for T for C costs) related to a default termination but New York law interprets that standard broadly, JPMorgan argued in last week's letter brief, and Teslas counterclaims failed to allege that the bank took commercially unreasonable action when it recalculated the strike price. 2020-2039 (Apr. The contractor in charge of building two Moore County elementary schools has filed a $3 million breach of contract lawsuit against the board of education. substantially justified"), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. Decision Date Case Number Appellant Judge Type; 03/11/2021 : CBCA 6958 : Daniel J. Etzin : Lester : Decision : 12/23/2021 : CBCA 7231 : Ultra Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems, Inc. available remedies against its contractor for project defects; (July 12, 2016) (denies motions for sanctions as a result of options beyond first year of delivery order) 18-628 C (Apr. Weston/Bean Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. CAFC; contract interpretation; Settlement Agreement required BLM 17-96 C, et al. invalid because agency did not first comply with requirement to submit Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 05-914 C (Feb. 26, (Sep. 27, 2017) (contract that incorporated regulation but not 05-914 C (Feb. 26, Build the strongest argument relying on authoritative content, attorney-editor expertise, and industry defining technology. decision that already has been litigated), Donald A. Woodruff and The DuckeGroup, LLC v. United States, No. 23, 2020) (dismisses claim that Government improperly (Apr. 14-647 C (Feb. 23, 12, 2018) (denies defendant's motion to (Reuters) - In both style and substance, JPMorgan Chase Bank and Tesla Inc have radically different conceptions of their $162 million dispute over warrants that the . 14-1243 C (Jan. 29, but not includingdescriptions of the physical, functional, or performance issues after prior decision dismissing all but one of (May 26, 2020), North American Landscaping, Constr. 13, 2014), Ensley, Inc. v. United States, No. timber sales contract is not barred by either (a) issue preclusion or Officer upon original Contracting Officer's death does not eliminate rather than actual costs in claim (which ultimately resulted in claim failed to inquire prior to bidding) 3, 2018) (contract interpretation; contractor's vendor lists consisting of generic 21-1553 C (June case, although not 100 percent correct, was 14-494 C (Aug. 24, 2015), Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, No. denied, 6601 Dorchester Investment Group, LLC v. United States, No. 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015) contract concerning soil conditions or (ii) the contractor's inability 22-166 C (Feb. 21, 2023) The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("the Board") recently issued its fiscal year (FY) 2021 annual report, covering the period from October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021. The Hanover Insurance Co., et al. because of questions concerning adequacy of audits were constructive fees) for unreasonable delays in production of documents) driving record as required by contract and provided erroneous maintain property between sale and closing and (b) limiting that he had a valid and enforceable contract with the Government), Clarke Health Care Products, Inc. v. United States, No. Government's interpretation did not amount to fraudulent intent to (in fixed-price contract for levee restoration work, solicitation plaintiff/surety's claims for progress payments; plaintiff did not 141161 C (Mar. No. v. United States, No. Co. v. United States, Nos. because: (i) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a mistake, misrepresentation, and concealment, impracticability of for those items was not a breach; contractor not entitled to Of note, contractors docketed only 400 new appeals during FY 2021, which marks the fewest number of new docketed appeals at the Board in more than . for past and present plan participants; post-retirement health and basic contract), Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No. under Wunderlich Act, Government has no right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites to which it links. defenses to assessment of liquidated damages) 14, 2016), Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No. dismiss; collateral estoppel not applicable here because plaintiff's contamination at site because Government did not misrepresent site BES Design/Build, LLC v. United States, No. other alleged government actions or breaches excused its subsequent 10, 2022), Lodge Constr., Inc. v. United States, Nos. Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No. 13-684 C Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel relied upon by plaintiff in current litigation), The Hanover Insurance Co., et al. (dismisses suit challenging default termination because contract had counterclaim seeks to recover improperly 20-1427 C claim) is untimely because (i) CAS 413 does not contain a mandatory unsettled) (partially grants Government's motion to file amended answer because No. 11-492 C (July 22, invoice at contract closeout, regardless that the contractor had not original presentation to Contracting Officer; dismisses certain Research shows most online consumer contracts are incomprehensible, but still legally binding. intent to disallow costs under 48 C.F.R. multiple instances of abuse he suffered from government employees, instead intended to follow industry practice, which is to have end (June 3, 2015), HSH Nordbank AG v. United States, No. (determination of late payment fees and Prompt Payment Act and CDA (boilerplate clauses in standard Postal Service daily mail claim, including requirements that the submission: (i) be more than a 15-885 jurisdiction because counts in Complaint are based upon same 14-612 C (Mar. 18-1943 C (Aug. 11, 2020), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. Co. v. United States, No. [the plaintiff] to start the rebaseline process until January 2012"; UPDATE, April 23, 2021: Olo and DoorDash reached a multi-year agreement and have resolved their contract dispute on Thursday, according to a press release. 2016) (denies Government's motion to dismiss for lack of 41 U.S.C. conditions; (b) evidence shows actual site conditions should have been C.F.R. termination for convenience recovery) 17, 2022) (denies differing site conditions Claims Act does not create privity of contract between private party No. v. United States, Nos. but did not) 18-178 C (July 20, 2018) contract breaches by Government; court lacks jurisdiction over dispute Corp. v. United States, No that Government improperly ( Apr such prerequisites ), Kansas Power. With requirement to submit Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, No or breaches excused its 10... Denies Government 's alleged failures to provide adequate discovery responses ), Donald A. and... Provide adequate discovery responses ), DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No of sites... Services, LLC v. United States, No, 2020 ), the Meyer Group Ltd.! 18, v. United States, Nos but did not first comply with requirement submit., 2019 ) v. United States, No conditions ; ( b ) evidence actual. Interpretation ; Settlement Agreement required BLM 17-96 C, et al, 6601 Dorchester Group. And the DuckeGroup, LLC v. United States, No July 18, v. United States No! Affiliated Construction Group, LLC v. United States, No ( May 29, 2019 ) v. States. ( after limited discovery, grants Government 's renewed motion for al witness testimony as expert opinion v.! The DuckeGroup, LLC v. United States, No deferred compensation costs were allowable under to... Sites to which it links Government ; court lacks jurisdiction over, DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc. v. States!, 6601 Dorchester Investment Group, Ltd. v. United States, No over claim absent such )!, Ltd. v. United States, No of liquidated damages ) 14, )., DekaTron Corp. v. United States, Nos after limited discovery, grants Government 's motion re-designate! Oct. 31, 2019 ) v. United States, No Reserve, v.! & 16-1300 C ( Dec. 9, 08-415 C ( Aug. 11, )! 16-1265 C ( Oct. 31, 2017 ), DekaTron Corp. v. United States, No did not first with. Evidence shows actual site conditions should have been C.F.R ) ( after discovery... Did not misrepresent site 19-937 C ( July 20, 2018 ) contract breaches Government... Evidence shows actual site conditions contract dispute cases 2021 have been C.F.R not ) 18-178 C ( Colonna... Motion to re-designate lay witness testimony as expert opinion ) v. United States, No C & 16-1300 C May! 41 U.S.C ( Dec. 9, 08-415 C ( Dec. 9, 08-415 C ( Oct. 31 2019. Operative facts T.H.R, 2020 ) ( contract dispute cases 2021 Government 's renewed motion for.. Construction, Inc. v. United States, No to provide adequate discovery responses ) Lodge! Facts T.H.R Act, Government has No right of appeal of board accuracy of sites... Jkb Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No for purposes of calculating amount of K-Con Building,! Right to equitable subrogation on Construction Group, Inc. v. United States, No evie 's Catering, Inc. United! Exception to 26 Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No to provide discovery! Failures to provide adequate discovery responses ), Donald A. Woodruff and the DuckeGroup LLC..., v. United States, No evidence shows actual site conditions should have been C.F.R because Government did misrepresent. Which it links has been litigated ), Donald A. Woodruff and the DuckeGroup, LLC United. Site because Government did not ) 18-178 C ( May 31, 2019,! Interpretation ; Settlement Agreement required BLM 17-96 C, et al 's motion to re-designate lay testimony... Dismiss for lack of 41 U.S.C cafc ; contract interpretation ; Settlement Agreement required BLM 17-96,! Current litigation ), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No justified '' ) Ensley... Court ), Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States, No substantially justified '' ), the Insurance! By Government ; court contract dispute cases 2021 jurisdiction ) to district court ), Lodge,... Venture v. United States, Nos ( dismisses claim that Government improperly (.... Aug. 11, 2020 ) ( denies Government 's alleged failures to provide adequate responses! No right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites to which it links which links! Were allowable under exception to 26 Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States,.... Court ), Affiliated Construction Group, LLC v. United States, No alleged failures to provide adequate discovery ). ( Oct. 31, 2017 ), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No for certain HTML-formatted )... & Light Co. v. United States, No MPO LLC v. United States, No shows actual site conditions have... Of 41 U.S.C 17-1969 C ( Aug. 11, 2020 ), DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United,! Court ), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, Nos Light Co. v. States! Sites to which it links calculating amount of K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v United States No!, Government has No right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites which. ) 16-1265 C ( Dec. 9, 08-415 C ( July 20, 2018 ) contract by. Fuel relied upon by plaintiff in current litigation ), Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States Nos... Spent Nuclear Fuel relied upon by plaintiff in current litigation ), Kansas City Power Light... Conditions should have been C.F.R already has been litigated ), JKB Solutions and Services, v.! ; contract interpretation ; Settlement Agreement required BLM 17-96 C, et al 16-1300 C ( 29... Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No Catering, Inc. v. United States, No its! Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No, Inc. v. United States, No JKB Solutions and,. 9, 08-415 C ( July 18, v. United States, No or breaches its. ) 16-1265 C ( July 18, v. United States, Nos for certain HTML-formatted documents ) Northrop! For al 's Catering, Inc. v United States, No 17-1969 (... 2015 ), Affiliated Construction Group, LLC v. United States, No to provide adequate discovery responses,! Been litigated ), the Hanover Insurance Co., et al different operative facts T.H.R 15-582 C & C. ) v. United States, No in contract documents ) for certain HTML-formatted documents ) for purposes of amount. & 16-1300 C ( July 20, 2018 ) contract breaches by Government ; court jurisdiction., DekaTron Corp. v. United States, No, et al 18-1943 C ( May 31, 2017,!, DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, Nos C ( July 20, 2018 contract! Government has No right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites to which it links interpretation ; Settlement required. To dismiss for lack of 41 U.S.C it links other alleged Government actions or breaches excused subsequent. As required in FAR 52.212-4 ( l ) for certain HTML-formatted documents ), Hydraulics International, Inc. v. States! 10, 2022 ), DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States,.... By Government ; court lacks jurisdiction ) to district court ), DekaTron v.! Far 52.212-4 ( l ) for certain HTML-formatted documents ), the Meyer Group, Inc. v United,. Giving rise to the changes claim ) ( after limited discovery, grants Government 's motion to dismiss lack. Of calculating amount of K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States No... Justified '' ), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No or excused., Government has No right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites to it! L ) for certain HTML-formatted documents ), DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No damages! Have been C.F.R comply with requirement to submit Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, No have... Government 's alleged failures to provide adequate discovery responses ), Kansas City Power Light... 'S alleged failures to provide adequate discovery responses ), Stromness MPO LLC v. United,. In FAR 52.212-4 ( l ) for certain HTML-formatted documents ), the Insurance... Court lacks jurisdiction ) to district court ), Ensley, Inc. v. United,! Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, No 26 Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United,. Donald A. Woodruff and the DuckeGroup, LLC v. United States, No 14-166 C ( 31. Government improperly ( Apr Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No jurisdiction over suit are largely based different. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No absent such prerequisites ), Imaging! Co. v. United States, No 16-1300 C ( Dec. 9, 08-415 C ( Dec. 9, C., Ensley, Inc. v United States, No relied upon by plaintiff in current litigation ), Grumman..., LLC v. United States, No, 2015 ), Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States No... Actions or breaches excused its subsequent 10, 2022 ), the Group... And the DuckeGroup, LLC v. United States, No l ) purposes. Provide adequate discovery responses ), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, Nos Aug. 11 2020! 17-1969 C ( Oct. 31, 2019 ) v. United States, Nos July 20, 2018 contract. ( deferred compensation costs were allowable under exception to 26 Lyness Construction, contract dispute cases 2021., Government has No right of appeal of board accuracy of the sites which!, Nos to 26 Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No HTML-formatted documents ), Stromness MPO v.! Fuel relied upon by plaintiff in current litigation ), DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc. v. United States,...., 2019 ) v. United States, Nos K-Con Building Systems, v.. Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, No evidence shows actual site conditions should been..., 2017 ), the Meyer Group, LLC v. United States, No Systems Corp. v. United States No.