|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Court of Federal Claims Contract Disputes (2006-2013) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
See also Recent Winstar Decisions Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision
Sperient Corp. v. United States, No. 13-185 C (Sep. 30, 2013) (Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) R&D contracts are procurement contracts covered by CDA) Sigma Construction, Inc., a/k/a Sigma Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-865 (Sep. 30, 2013) (oral agreement by Contracting Officer and contractor to settle convenience termination claim was not enforceable against the Government because it was not in writing as required by FAR Part 49 and the Contracting Officer lacked authority to enter into an oral contract) Dotcom Associates I, LLC v. United States, No. 12-102 (Sep. 23, 2013) (dismisses complaint because plaintiff did not allege specific facts in support of theory of breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing) Aeroplate Corp. v. United States, No. 12-374 C (Aug. 1, 2013) (denies (for lack of jurisdiction) subcontractors' motion to intervene in contract case to enforce equitable lien on funds agency has set aside for project or owes to prime contractor/plaintiff) Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-607 C (May 31, 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction over claims related to Government's termination for cause of BPA because BPA is not a contract and, under it, plaintiff made no binding commitments to Government) Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-064 C (May 31, 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction over claims related to Government's convenience termination of BPA because BPA is not a contract and, under it, plaintiff made no binding commitments to Government) Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-539 C (Apr. 26, 2013) (dismisses complaint for lack of jurisdiction (for a second time) because contractor failed to establish it had submitted a claim to the Contracting Officer for a decision) Bristol Bay Area Health v. United States, No. 07-725 C (Apr. 18, 2013) (denies motions to dismiss claims as barred by Statute of Limitations and res judicata) DaVita, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-297 C (Mar. 28, 2013) (court has jurisdiction over (i) claim for declaratory judgment that VA violated 38 C.F.R. 17.36 by failing to pay plaintiff for authorizations for dialysis treatments; and (ii) claim for interpretation that a 2009 contract authorized certain of the treatments for which Government failed to pay plaintiff) Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-366 C (Feb. 22, 2013) (because award fee provisions are ambiguous on issue whether Contracting Officer had discretion to ignore mathematical system for calculating fee, court refuses to dismiss contractor's claim that his award fee decision breached the contract and was arbitrary and ambiguous, but does dismiss claims the decision breached implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that violated FAR 16.401) Red Hawk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-186 C (Feb. 13, 2013) (dismisses subcontractor's claim that Government's Contracting Officer fraudulently dispersed funds in violation of Anti-Assignment Act because subcontractor had no privity of contractor with Government and was not (and could not have been) an assignee) Sundowner 102, LLC v. United States, No. 12-304 C (Jan. 17, 2013) (use of phrase "long term" in ID/IQ contract to lease aircraft to Government for base term of one year with seven one-year options did not obligate Government to exercise options) Westlands Water District v. United States, No. 12-12 C (Jan. 15, 2013) (dismisses claims based on various breach of contract theories because there was no contractual obligation by the Government to provide drainage to the plaintiff at any specific time and many of the claims are barred by the statute of limitations) Estes Express Lines, v. United States, No. 11-597 C (Jan. 15, 2013) (no Tucker Act jurisdiction over action by subcontractor) Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-261 C (Dec. 10, 2012) (no CDA jurisdiction because no final decision had been issued at time Complaint was filed; no decision could be implied because nothing Government had done had determined liability or damages related to contractor's claim; no constructive termination for default had occurred) Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 12-57 C (Dec. 5, 2012) (no jurisdiction because no privity of contract between plaintiff/subcontractor and United States) K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-981 C (Nov. 30, 2012) (contractor's letter to Contracting Officer requesting remission of previously assessed liquidated damages for allegedly late performance was CDA claim when read in context of contractor's earlier letters requesting time extensions; current suit divested Contracting Officer of authority to issue decision on portion of subsequent claim that was already encompassed by suit; denies contractor's objections to bases for liquidated damages rate used in contract; releases in contract modifications preclude contractor from seeking further excusable delays based on inclement weather (hurricanes); denies another excusable delay because contractor did not go through proper steps to obtain approval for change in construction sequence) Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 11-499 C (Oct. 22, 2012) (equitable subrogation; court denies government motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted where plaintiff alleged that Government wrongfully paid money to contractor on contracts for which plaintiff, as equitable subrogee, was performance bond surety, under "two contract" theory of Transamerica Insurance Co. v. United States, 989 F.2d 1188 (1993)) Kenney Orthopedic, LLC and John M. Kenney v. United States, No. 11-502 C (Oct. 17, 2012) (court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for misrepresentation in inducement to enter settlement agreement, but court dismisses claim for failure to state sufficient facts of the what, when, where, and how of the alleged misrepresentations under Rule 9(b)) Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, No. 12-89 C (Oct. 16, 2012) (dismisses case pursuant to Tucker Act's statute of limitations because it was filed more than six years after date it accrued) Extreme Coatings, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-895 C (Oct. 3, 2012) (stays proceedings to permit Contracting Officer time to decide claims related to claims already before the court where contractor submitted claims in question to Contracting Officer after filing suit on other claims) Uniglobe General Trading & Contracting Co, W.L.L. v. United States, No. 10-204 C (Sep. 27, 2012) (claims barred by CDA's six-year statute of limitations and by failure to appeal decision within 12 months of Contracting Officer's decision) Atkins North America, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 09-112 C (Aug. 30, 2012) (Contracting Officer's decision on government claim was valid because Contracting Officer exercised independent judgment by becoming familiar with the facts and conclusions contained in the decision and adopting them as her own) Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 09-306 C (July 26, 2012) (denies Government's motion for reconsideration of holding on expiration of statute of limitations because Government's claim can accrue before Government's audit even begins) Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844 C, 10-714 C (July 2012) (denies Government's motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's affirmative defenses of lapse of statute of limitations and accord and satisfaction because factual questions remain with regard to each) M.E.S., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-92 (May 23, 2012) (court lacks subject matter and ancillary jurisdiction over bonding company's claims in intervention that (a) plaintiff should be required (i) to pay to bonding company any recovery by plaintiff to the extent of bonding company's bond losses and (ii) to pay into court any remaining balance on plaintiff's affirmative recovery . . . to be held for the benefit of bonding company as a set-off against any potential award in a separate federal district court lawsuit and (b) court should issue declaratory judgment that in the event of an affirmative recovery by plaintiff against the Government, the claims alleged against the bonding company by the Government in the district court suit with respect to the alleged excess reprocurement costs are subject to setoff to the extent of any such affirmative recovery by the Government against the plaintiff; CDA statute of limitations with regard for claim for excess reprocurement costs begins to run when Government pays reprocurement contractor, not when original default termination is issued; Government, nevertheless, unreasonably delayed reprocurement) Pepper Tree Apartments, LTD. II v. United States, No. 12-237 C (May 8, 2012) (complaint filed on date deposited in night depository) Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 09-306 C (Apr. 2, 2012) (CDA statute of limitations bars Contracting Officer's decision on government claim issued ten years after advance agreement on allowable costs that government now challenges; continuing claims doctrine, equitable tolling under FAR "Credits" clause, and accrual suspension doctrine do not apply here) L-3 Services, Inc., Aerospace Electronics Division v. United States, No. 11-755 C (Mar. 15, 2012) (no jurisdiction over claims under maritime contract; neither FAR nor Antideficiency Act grants jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims) Township of Saddle Brook v. United States, No. 10-213 C (Mar. 16, 2012) (dismisses claim for implied-in-fact contract for failure to establish mutual intent to contract and exchange of consideration; no jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims over claims for promissory estoppel) Joyce Terry d/b/a Shirt Shack v. United States, No. 09-454 C (Mar. 9, 2012) (dismisses discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction in CoFC; dismisses promissory estoppel claim because it is based on a contract implied in law, for which Government has not waived sovereign immunity; dismisses breach claims for failure to allege facts that establish breach) Kenney Orthopedic, LLC, and John M. Kenney v. United States, No. 11-502 C (Feb. 29, 2012) (claims based on alleged breaches of settlement agreement--(i) dismisses claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing because there are no allegations of fact that support a plausible claim and (ii) requires plaintiff to amend claim for misrepresentation in the inducement to specify the alleged misrepresentation) Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-504 C (Feb. 21, 2012) (rejects contractor's argument that court has jurisdiction over its claim for breach of contract under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b) and then dismisses suit for lack of CDA jurisdiction because contractor did not first submit claim to Contracting Officer for decision) Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., f/k/a Taos Industries, Inc. v. United States No. 11-101 C (Jan 20, 2012) (dismisses claim without prejudice because original submission to Contracting Officer did not include required CDA certification) SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-453C (Jan. 17, 2012) (denies government motion to dismiss complaint in direct appeal to court for attorneys' fees on prior successful ASBCA case, based on 1979 "Disputes" clause in non-appropriated fund contract that only provided for appeal to ASBCA; "Disputes" clause is not controlling on this issue because the Government breached it by failing to issue decision on contractor's claim for attorney fees within a reasonable time) Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-84C (Oct. 31, 2011) (declines to summarily dismiss plaintiff's claim for government breach of non disclosure agreements (NDAs) because questions remain whether waiver or operation of law exceptions to Anti-Assignment Act apply to assignment of the NDAs) Stockton East Water District, et al. v. United States, No. 04-541L (Oct. 31, 2011) (court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's breach of contract claims for failure of Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water in accordance with contract) Insurance Co. of the West v. United States, No. 09-509C (Sep. 8, 2011) (dismisses claim of surety as alleged equitable subrogee and assignee of contractor's claim because the surety did not prove the Government had waived the protections of the Assignment of Claims Act) Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-613C (June 23, 2011) (claim that did not notify Contracting Officer that it had been assigned did not contain a clear and unequivocal statement that gave the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis of the claim) Newtech Research Systems LLC v. United States, No. 10-140C (June 16, 2011) (claimed time-barred because not submitted within six years of its accrual) Bowers Investment Co., LLC v. United States, No. 10-677C (Apr. 22, 2011) (claim preclusion: dismisses claims that could (and should) have been litigated during earlier CBCA appeal) Parkwood Assocs. Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 07-742C (Apr. 8, 2011) (claim for breach of contract is time-barred by 28 U.S.C. 2501 because it "first accrued" much more than six years before the plaintiff brought this action) FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-651C (Apr. 6, 2011) (subcontractor has standing as intended third party beneficiary of contract modification to bring suit for damages against the Government after Government breached the modification by failing to issue checks jointly to prime and sub) Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., et al., v. United States, No. 10-191C (Feb. 11, 2011) (dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction because contractor failed to file valid CDA claim with Contracting Officer within CDA's six-year statute of limitations) Anthony M. Bussie v. United States, No. 10-443C (Jan. 13, 2011) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction over claim that plaintiff was not paid for psychic services provided to various administrations) YRC, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-154C (Dec. 16, 2010) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no express or implied-in-fact contract existed between plaintiff and the Government and because federal officials who dealt with plaintiff had no authority to contract on behalf of Government) BLR Group of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-579C (Dec. 16, 2010) (denies contractor's motion for partial consideration of prior decision because neither contractor's comments disagreeing with performance assessment report nor its counsel's email to the Contracting Officer attempting to convince her to withdraw or change the Government's evaluation constitute a CDA claim) Lawndale Restoration Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 09-798C (Nov. 23, 2010) (no jurisdiction over claim for promissory estoppel) Henry Housing Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 10-226C (Nov. 10, 2010) (Government's abrogation of prepayment term of Farmers Home Administration loan contract; takings versus contract claims) Malinda Baldwin v. United States, No. 09-492C (Nov. 5, 2010) (failing (i) to submit written demand to Contracting Officer and (ii) to specify a sum certain being claimed are not harmless errors, but fatal jurisdictional flaws) Edge Construction Co. v. United States, No. 06-635C (Oct. 29, 2010) (grants portions of Government's motion for summary judgment re construction contract claims because some alleged additional work was within scope of contract and contractor was not entitled to damages for lost productivity resulting from unusually severe weather) Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 10-191C (Oct. 21, 2010) (dismisses PPA, takings, and punitive damages portions of claims, as well as claim submitted when firm was no longer a contractor with the United States, and claim barred by CDA statute of limitations) International Industrial Park, Inc., et al, v. United States, No. 09-691C (Oct. 12, 2010) (barter agreement for relocation of an easement in return for undertaking to pave roads on easement is not a contract within meaning of CDA; therefore, contractor did not have to file claim with Contracting Officer prior to filing suit in court) The Marquardt Co. v. United States, No. 09-642C (Oct. 8, 2010) (contractor not entitled to CDA or PPA interest on time required for Government to make payments under global settlement agreement of various underlying contracts) System Planning Corp. v. United States, No. 07-678C (Oct. 6, 2010) (six-year Tucker Act Statute of Limitations does not apply to contractor electing to proceed under the CDA) L.A. Ruiz Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. (Sep. 23, 2010) (no CDA jurisdiction over contractor's counterclaim in response to government claim because no proof it arose from the same set of operative facts and no Contracting Officer's decision on it; jurisdiction over contractor's claim for declaratory judgment to the effect that Government's affirmative claim against contractor is null and void) FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-651C (Sep. 23, 2010) (case not barred by Statute of Limitations; purpose of Statute of Limitations; diligent pursuit of rights by claimant) BLR Group of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-579C (Aug. 16, 2010) (on reconsideration of prior decision, holds contractor's written objections to an unfavorable CPAR did not constitute a CDA claim because Contracting Officer reasonably interpreted them as comments submitted pursuant to FAR § 42.1503(b)) Peninsula Group Capital Corp. v. United States, No. 09-747C (Aug. 9, 2010) (no jurisdiction because parties never executed written contract after negotiations) Paradigm Learning, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-873C (June 14, 2010) (court has CDA jurisdiction over claim that government breached schedule contract by disclosing proprietary information included in delivered items in violation of contract and nondisclosure agreement) Allstar Mayflower, LLC, et al. v. United States, No. 09-572C (June 10, 2010) (claim for reimbursement of PowerTrack Fees under transportation services contracts is governed by three-year statute of limitations of Interstate Commerce Act rather than by six-year statute of CDA) Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-759C (June 3, 2010) (dismisses suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1500 because suit seeking same relief was filed in District Court) U.S. Home Corp, et al. v. United States, No. 09-63C (Apr. 15, 2010) (court has jurisdiction over breach of contract claims based on sales of real property by United States; lack of jurisdiction of CERCLA claims because it is not a money-mandating statute) Perry L. Brock D/B/A Machine Technologies v. United States, No. (Apr. 2010) (lack of CDA jurisdiction over claim never submitted to Contracting Officer for decision) Bell BCI Co. v. United States, No. (Feb. 24, 2010) (when there is no just reason for a delay, a contractor may obtain immediate recovery in the form of partial summary judgment on claims affirmed on appeal without waiting for remaining claims to be resolved) Cardiosom, LLC v. United States, No. 08-533C (Feb. 23, 2010) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)(1)(D) prohibits judicial review of Plaintiff’s claims) Philip Emiabata d/b/a Nova Express v. United States, No. 06-702C (Oct. 30, 2009) (collateral estoppel; issue preclusion; claim preclusion; res judicata) Martin Byrd Quillen, Sr. v. United States, No. 08-140C (Oct. 1, 2009) (computation of 12-month statutory period for appealing Contracting Officer's decision to court under CDA; lack of jurisdiction over tort, negligence, and due process claims) Taylor Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-305C (Sep. 30, 2009) (stay of actions for alleged violations of Trade Secrets Act, Procurement Integrity Act, and Contract Disputes Act to allow plaintiff to submit proper claims to the Contracting Officer) Hal D. Hicks f/d/b/a Hal D. Hicks Mail Transportation v. United States, No. 05-1058C (Sep. 18, 2009) (dismisses complaint alleging government breach of mail delivery contract by agreeing to its novation) Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States, No. 09-38C (Aug. 17, 2009) (Contract Disputes Act; denies government motion to dismiss; breach claim involved operative facts different from those underlying unappealed default termination and, therefore, was not untimely filed or appealed; implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) The Liquidating Trustee Ester Duval of KI Liquidation, Inc., f/k/a Kullman Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-465C (Aug. 11, 2009) (denies cross motions for summary judgment; false claims; forfeiture statute; actions of bankruptcy trustee) OK's Cascade Co. v. United States, No. (July 21, 2009) (Contracting Officer's decisions on the merits of uncertified claims in excess of $100,000 do not bind the Government or the reviewing court) Sitco General & Trading Co. v. United States, No. 08-608C (June 22, 2009) (dismisses complaint because plaintiff did not first file written, certified claim with Contracting Officer as required by CDA) Texas National Bank f/k/a Mercedes National Bank v. United States, No. 07-355C (Mar. 6, 2009) (issues of fact concerning whether Government consented to assignments under Anti-Assignment statutes preclude summary judgment; statute of limitations for contract claims; accrual suspension rule) Peter Kalos and Veron Kalos v. United States, No. 08-631C (Apr. 27, 2009) (lack of jurisdiction; failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; alleged loss of real property due to Government's acceptance of counterfeit Miller Act bond) Michael Kawa v. United States, No. 06-448C (Mar. 23, 2009) (res judicata; claim preclusion; issue preclusion; privity; substantive legal relationship; real party in interest; third-party beneficiary; assignment of right to payment; implied-in-fact contract; ratification) Saudi Logistics and Technical Support v. United States, No. 08-142C (Feb. 17, 2009) (Contracting Officer's decision on government defective pricing claim, which mainly relied on DCAA audit report, was valid decision under the CDA) Lan-Dale Co. v. United States, No. 03-1956C (Jan. 28, 2009) (Contract Disputes Act; 28 U.S.C. 1500; dismisses claim filed simultaneously in Court of Federal Claims and district court even though district court lacked jurisdiction) Todd Construction L.P., f/k/a, Todd Construction Co. v. United States, No. 07-324C (Dec. 9, 2008) (claim that government performance evaluations are inaccurate or procedurally improper is claim under Contract Disputes Act over which court has jurisdiction) BLR Group of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-579C (Nov. 25, 2008) (CDA; court has CDA jurisdiction over complaint filed after Contracting Officer failed to issue a decision on a contractor's claim that contractor performance assessment report (CPAR) was inaccurate) Laudes Corp. v. United States, No. 07-4C (Oct. 16, 2008) (court lacks jurisdiction over contract not performed with appropriated funds) M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, No 03-2825C (Oct. 3, 2008) (lack of CDA jurisdiction; failure of contractor to request a decision by the Contracting Officer; failure to certify; government claim for liquidated damages) TDM America, LLC v. United States, No. 05-472C (Sep. 17, 2008) (jurisdiction over patent infringement case; meaning of authorization and consent and use for the United States in 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) and FAR 52.227-1) Veridyne Corp. v. United States, Nos. 06-150C & 07-647C(Sep. 12, 2008) (fraud counterclaim by Government; forfeiture) American Ordnance, LLC v. United States, No. 07-867C (Sep. 12, 2008) (Government claim of ownership in manufacturing equipment in GOCO facility; CDA statute of limitations bars government claim; applicability of CDA statute of limitations over that in 28 U.S.C. 2415) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365C (Aug. 28, 2008) (jurisdiction over question whether breach is "material") Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States, No. 08-0003C (Aug. 7, 2008) (CDA jurisdiction; lack of certified claim; Federal Tort Claims Act jurisdiction; tort claims) Metrotop Plaza Associates v. United States, No. 07-811C (July 24, 2008) (Contracting Officer's willingness to discuss settlement impliedly was reconsideration of his decision which tolled running of CDA statute of limitations) NCLN20, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-1282C (June 4, 2008) (CDA; sufficiency of claim; deemed denial; statute of limitations; sufficiency of certification) American Red Ball Int'l, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-211C (Nov. 28, 2007) (CDA jurisdiction; lack of contract; lack of claim) Arbitraje Casa de Cambio S.A. DE CV, et al v. United States, No. 05-217C (Nov. 19, 2007) (sovereign immunity; Tucker Act jurisdiction; implied-in-fact contract) Asset 42302 LLC v. United States, No. 03-287C (July 27, 2007) (Tucker Act and Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction; affirmative defense; real property lease issues) Keeter Trading Co. v. United States, No. 05-243 (July 19, 2007) (capacity to sue; Contract Disputes Act; breach; duty to perform; cardinal change; default termination) Michael Kawa v. United States, No. 06-448C (June 28, 2007) (Tucker Act jurisdiction; implied contract; assignment of payment rights) Guy W. Parker v. United States, No. 06-701C (June 28, 2007) (CDA and Wunderlich Act jurisdiction) Roxco, Ltd. v United States, No 02-176C (June 20, 2007) (CDA claim; supplemental claim; amended complaint) ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-440C (May 31, 2007) (CDA certification and jurisdiction; R&D cost allowability) P.R. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-30C (May 31, 2007) (CDA Jurisdiction; contract interpretation; parol evidence; VEQ clause) Sarang Corp. v. United States, No. 06-506C (May 25, 2007) (CDA Claim; PPA interest) Phillips/May Corp. v. United States, No. 06-47C (May 3, 2007)(denying motion for reconsideration; claim preclusion; res judicata) Trafalger House Constr., Inc. v. United States, No. 99-363C (Apr. 30, 2007)(certification; recoupment of interim payment) Phillips/May Corp. V. United States, No. 06-47C (Apr 19, 2007)(claim preclusion; res judicata) Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-255C (Apr. 10, 2007)(CDA; Spearin Doctrine; procurement contract) M.A. DeAtley Constr. v. United States, No. 04-1052C (Mar 30, 2007)(false and fraudulent claims) M.A. DeAtley Constr., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1052C (Feb. 28, 2007) (presentation of claims to Contracting Officer) AAB Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 04-1719C et al (Jan. 26, 2007) (claim jurisdiction and certification, various construction contract issues) Morse Diesel International, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-529C et al (Jan. 26, 2007) (certification) Phillip J. LaVezzo d/b/a DKO Technologies, No. 05-575C (Dec. 7, 2006) (lack of independent and unbiased contracting officer's decision on claim) C.D. Hayes, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-376C (Nov. 30, 2006) (default termination by Government does not confer jurisdiction on court for plaintiff's affirmative claims for conversion to termination for convenience; law of the case doctrine) Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No. 04-1757C (Nov. 17, 2006) (HUD HAP contracts: government breach; Tucker Act statute of limitations; continuing claims doctrine) Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, v. United States, No. 06-666C (Nov. 1, 2006) (Randolph-Sheppard Act; jurisdiction) Information International Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1489C (Oct. 31, 2006) (reformation of contract due to unilateral mistake in bid established by contractor; requisites for a CDA claim; deemed denial of claim) Trafalgar House Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-363C (Oct. 31, 2006) (defective CDA certification; differing site conditions) Inversa, S.A., et al., v. United States, No. 01-220C (Oct. 23, 2006) (eight-year long dispute leading to litigation does not constitute administrative payment delay falling within Prompt Payment Act, but rather within CDA) The Sweetwater, A Wilderness Lodge, LLC v. United States, No. 02-1795C (Oct. 6, 2006) (permit termination issues not covered by CDA) The Sweetwater, A Wilderness Lodge, LLC v. United States, No. 02-1795C (Aug. 25, 2006) (sweetwater permit not covered by CDA) Environmental Tectonics Corp. v. United States, No. 05-746C (July 31, 2006) (jurisdiction over claims for restitution, claim preparation costs, financing costs, and interest expenses) ATK Thiokol Inc. v. United States, No. 99-440C (July 31, 2006) (scope of certified claim not limited to "test" contract chosen for purposes of focusing issues) Bell BCI Co. v. United States, No. 03-1613C (July 14, 2006) (no Tucker Act jurisdiction over claim for promissory estoppel) Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-306C (June 30, 2006) (alleged errors in Contracting Officer's final decision did not excuse contractor's failure to appeal it in timely manner; motion for reconsideration denied) Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-306C (June 29, 2006) (claim that Government breached its duty to cooperate with contractor was not within court's jurisdiction because it had not been submitted to Contracting Officer for decision and was different from the Differing Site Conditions claim that had been submitted to him) The Dallas Irrigation District v. United States, No. 05-1042C (June 19, 2006) (six-year statute of limitations does not bar breach of contract action) Faye Zhengxing v. United States, Nos. 04-0119C, 05-532C (June 9, 2006) (blanket purchase agreement is not contract for purposes of Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction) Centers v. United States, No. 05-591C (June 1, 2006) (lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff is not in privity of contract with the Government; Tucker Act six-year statute of limitations) Susan S. Fahey v. United States, No. 04-1540C, (May 31, 2006) (dismisses breach of contract claim for alleged failure of government to notify plaintiff of appeal rights; allegation of bad faith termination for convenience of mail delivery contracts) Edward T. Arakaki and Helen Arakaki v. United States, No. 03-1874C (May 30, 2006) (jurisdiction and standing; lack of express or implied authority of government agent to bind Government; lack of contract) Grinnell v. United States, No. 06-231C (Apr. 27, 2006) (appeal to Board is not binding election under CDA if it was untimely) States Roofing Corp. v. United States, No. 05-960C (Apr. 12, 2006) (protective appeal; ripeness) International Data Products Corp. v. United States, Nos. 01-459C, 03-2515C (Apr. 10, 2006) (no jurisdiction over claim for contract implied-in-law; no express or implied contract under which plaintiff performed post-termination warranty work) Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-299C (Mar. 31, 2006) (construction contract; differing site conditions; return of liquidated damages; defective specifications; excusable and compensable delay; Eichleay damages; requisites for Contract Disputes Act claim; presentation of claim to Contracting Officer) Engineered Demolition, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-2231C (Mar. 28, 2006) (supplementation of claim to Contracting Officer; patent ambiguity in specs) Armour of America v. United States, No 04-1731C (Feb. 14, 2006) (although Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's appeal from Contracting Officer's default termination, it does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for monetary damages equivalent to converting default to convenience termination because plaintiff has not yet submitted monetary claim to Contracting Officer; failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted--plaintiff cannot claim Government should not have accepted its bid under FAR 14.301(a))
Jemal’s Lazriv Water, LLC v. United States, No. 12-151 C (Dec. 19, 2013) (for purposes of lease's tax adjustment clause, interprets the provision stating that base year taxes include "the real estate taxes for the first 12-month period of the lease term coincident with full assessment.") Kenneth Earman v. United States, No.10-617 C (Dec. 12, 2013) (rejects plaintiff's claim of mutual mistake in part because plaintiff presented no evidence of its own mistake; rejects plaintiff's contention that statute was incorporated into contract, despite Government's concession that it was; rejects incorporation by Christian doctrine because provision at issue because this was not a procurement contract and the clause in question was not a "mandatory contract clause[] which express[es] a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy") Chapman Law Firm, LPA v. United States, No. 09-891 C (Nov. 25, 2013) (plaintiff's affirmative claims are forfeited under Special Plea in Fraud statute because plaintiff submitted falsified routine inspection reports and plaintiff is liable for four such falsified submissions under Civil False Claims Act) Englewood Terrace Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 03-2209 C (Nov. 22, 2013) (on remand from CAFC, court reduces award of damages for lost profits resulting from breach of contract to zero because plaintiff failed to prove the amount of damages resulting from the breach), affirmed by CAFC SUFI Network Services v. United States, No. 11-453 C (Oct. 16, 2013) (contractor entitled to recover ~$697,000 in attorneys fees in successful suit for government breach of NAFI contract not covered by CDA or FAR because attorneys' recorded hours and hourly rates were reasonable) Thomas F. Neenan v. United States, No. 11-733 C (Aug. 22, 2013) (draft lease agreement did not amount to binding contract) Bay County, Florida v. United States, No. 11-157 C (Aug. 14, 2013) (uses Christian doctrine to hold that Government could not rely on clause it improperly included in contract, but was bound by terms of clause it should have included) The Ravens Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-754 C (July 26, 2013) (contractor not entitled to recover costs of servicing three units not identified in original contract because total number of units it serviced did not exceed total number contemplated by contract; contractor not entitled to use jury verdict method to calculate damages because contract required it to track labor hours to determine any excess costs, which it failed to do, but sufficient records exist for it to reconstruct such hours) Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-865 C (Apr. 3, 2013) (grants Government's motion for summary judgment; contractor is not entitled to price increases based on alleged discrepancies between local prices and those contained in pricing book incorporated in solicitation because book contained explicit warnings that those prices might not be accurate and that the contractor should verify pricing for itself and should adjust its bidding coefficient accordingly) TigerSwan, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-62 C (Apr. 2, 2013) (Government (i) initially awarded contract to plaintiff for security services in Iraq; (ii) then (in midst of protests filed by competing offerors, including the incumbent) terminated the contract for convenience after it concluded it no longer needed many of the services; (iii) awarded second contract for reduced scope of work to plaintiff after quick turnaround solicitation limited to original competitors; (iv) but then terminated that contract for convenience as well (and awarded sole source contract to incumbent, which was already operating under bridge contract due to prior protests) on basis that protests and resulting stop work order and delays had made it impossible for plaintiff to mobilize and complete work in timely manner. Court denies Government's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for breach based on its objections to terminations for convenience, but grants motion to dismiss bid protest claims for bid preparation costs, because plaintiff had not bid on the sole source contract, which had been completed by the time of the decision) Hernandez, Kroone and Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 07-165 C (Mar. 29, 2013) (actions of parties before dispute arose demonstrate that plaintiff's proposal formed a part of resulting contract and subsequent modification merely making that fact clear was not a change to the contract; court denies defendant's counterclaims in fraud because unorthodox way contract was negotiated gave rise to the legitimate disputes concerning its scope) 1200 Sixth Street, LLC v. United States, No. 12-388 C (Feb. 14, 2013) (dismisses breach of contract claim because Government's actions did not strictly comply with requirements of option provision, and, therefore, the Government did not exercise the option) Shell Oil Co., et al. v. United States, No. 06-141 C, 06-1411 C (Jan. 14, 2013) ("Taxes" clause does not contemplate indemnification claims by companies for later imposed CERCLA clean-up costs after contracts ended) P&K Contracting, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-399 C (Dec. 21, 2012) (plaintiff not entitled to extra costs of providing contractually compliant HVAC system despite allegations of mistake, defective specifications, equitable estoppel, superior knowledge) Alpena Marc, LLC v. United States, No. 11-263 C (Dec. 20, 2012) (in denying motion for summary judgment, court notes that case does not fit neatly within doctrine of patent ambiguity and that "the parties’ cribbed formulation of these doctrines [ambiguity and mistake] hamstrings not only resolution on summary judgment, but also an appropriate resolution of a bizarre contractual impasse that the rules of contract interpretation may not resolve satisfactorily to either party") SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-804 C (Nov. 8,2012) (Wunderlich Act review of ASBCA decision in non-CDA case involving nonappropriated fund activity; contract to provide telephone services in guest lodging rooms on U. S. Air Force bases in Germany; increases award to contractor for various breaches and changes from $4.6 million to $118.7 million) Lublin Corp, t/a Century 21 Advantage Gold v. United States, No. 07-206 C (Sep. 19, 2012) (subcontractor failed to prove its termination resulted from Government leaking information about it to the prime)
BPLW Architects & Engineers. Inc. v. United States, No. 09-672 C (Sep.
7, 2012) (architect breached contract by negligently failing to
provide Nycal Offshore Development Corp. v. United States, No. 05-249 C (Aug. 23, 2012) (following government breach of oil and gas lease, plaintiff not entitled to lost profit because of intervening cause--plaintiff's inability to obtain necessary air pollution permits) Overseas Lease Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-123 C (Aug. 24, 2012) (contract for government lease of vehicles for use in Afghanistan; contract interpretation; Government breached contract by failing to compensate plaintiff for damage to returned vehicles and by issuing short term leases that did not comply with minimum contract term) Sugar Hill, LLC V. United States, No. 09-690 C (Aug. 1, 2012) (contractor failed to prove it was damaged by Government's failure to restore trailer park property at end of post-Katrina lease for mobile home trailer pads because contractor did not present credible evidence the park had diminished in value) Bell Heery/A Joint Venture v. United States, No.11-462 C (July 31, 2012) (dismisses counts requesting "review" of Contracting Officer's denial of claims because CDA only authorizes suit directly on the claims; actions of state officials in hindering performance of federal construction contract could not be attributed to actual or implied breaches or changes of the contract by defendant; contract allocated risk of such actions to contractor) System Planning Corp. v. United States, No. 07-678 C (July 12, 2012) (denies claim because option clause containing language on which claim is based was never exercised) Veridyne Corp. v. United States, No. 06-150 C (July 6, 2012) (procuring agency's complicity in contract extension that violated SBA 8(a) program competition requirements; contractor's fraudulent submission of invoices to avoid funding limitations) Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-849 C (May 23, 2012) (denies various claims for government damage to leased property; government did not prove required mental state (of knowing submission of fraudulent claim) under the FCA, the FFCA or the antifraud provision of the CDA on its counterclaims for fraud) Benjamin & Shaki Alli and BSA Corp. v. United States, No. 01-669 C (May 15, 2012) (grants summary judgment for Government on amount of liability of plaintiffs for Government's counterclaim against plaintiffs for default and breach of housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts) Pacific Gas and Electric Co., et al. v. United States, Nos. 07-157 C, 07-167 (May 2, 2012) (plaintiffs' submission of best data available concerning amounts owed satisfied requirement for sum certain; government liable for breach (by nonpayment) of refunds due plaintiffs), case under reconsideration The People of the State of California, et al. v. United States, No. 07-184 C (May 2, 2012) (plaintiffs' submission of best data available concerning amounts owed satisfied requirement for sum certain; government liable for breach (by nonpayment) of refunds due plaintiffs) Pew Forest Products v. United States, No. 09-814 C (May 7, 2012) (contracts did not come into existence until signed by Government (not when bids were opened); government did not compensably delay plaintiff's logging operations--solicitation and contract documents clearly warned plaintiff of possible events that might affect logging schedule) The Nascent Group, J.V., by Native American Services Corp. v. United States, No. 09-092 (Jan. 18, 2012) (denies claims for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Railway Logistics International v. United States, No. 09-14C (Jan. 17, 2012) (denies contractor's breach claims and grants Government's fraud counterclaims) Timber Products Co. v. United States, No. 01-627C (Dec. 29, 2011) (breach of implied duty to cooperate and not to hinder performance by awarding (and later suspending) timber sales contract without revealing to contractor that Government's interpretation of the law as permitting it to forego environmental surveys was unlikely to prevail in a pending district court suit) Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States, No. 07-777C (Dec. 9, 2011) (denies multiple contractor claims for constructive changes, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and Differing Site Conditions, but awards more than a year in excusable delays due to (i) delayed notice to proceed; and (ii) government's failure to promptly investigate soil conditions as required by "Differing Site Conditions" clause) Gonzales-McCauley Investment Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-289C (Nov. 14, 2011) (correspondence between parties insufficient to establish procurement contract through offer and acceptance) Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States, No. 09-265C, -882C (Oct. 31, 2011) (WWII contracts for avgas require Government to bear current cleanup costs for refineries that produced avgas) The Marquardt Co. v. United States, No. 09-642C (Oct. 27, 2011) (denies government motion for summary judgment; contract interpretation; breach of settlement agreement) International Industrial Park, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 09-691C (Oct. 7, 2011) (non-CDA barter contract for road improvements; contract interpretation; equitable estoppel; waiver; rescission) Alcatec, LLC. v. United States, No. 08-113C (Aug. 24, 2011) (plaintiff forfeits claim pursuant to to Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2514; Government entitled to penalties and damages under False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)) K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1054C (Aug. 19, 2011) (denies motion for summary judgment on issue whether contractor gave government adequate notice that it considered government comments in 35 and 50% design reviews constituted changes; liquidated damages provision is enforceable) Jullie G. Horn v. United States, No. 07-655C (May 3, 2011) (even though boilerplate stated document was requirements contract, it was neither requirements nor indefinite quantity contract, and contractor had no recourse when Government decided to use in-house services shortly after performance period began) The Redland Co. v. United States, No. 08-606C (Apr. 7, 2011) (contractor not entitled to Eichleay or unabsorbed overhead damages during government suspension of work because suspension began before initial performance began and contractor offered no proof it remained on standby during the suspension; failure of proof that Government was responsible for delay) Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-849C (Mar. 17, 2011) (Government's duties at end of lease under Restoration clause) Lublin Corp., t/a Century 21, Advantage Gold v. United States, No. 07-206C (Feb. 24, 2011) (government officials need not have explicit authority to enter into contracts generally in order to be found to have implied actual authority to enter into a particular contract) Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1366C (Feb. 14, 2011) (determination of damages resulting from Government's breach of CRADA) K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-914C (Jan. 24, 2011) (rejects challenges to liquidated damages provision and liquidated damages rate in contract; denies contractor's motion for summary judgment that assessment of liquidated damages was improper) Maria Sandra Fernandez de Iglesias v. United States, No. 08-464C (Dec. 22, 2010) (application of Mexican law to various theories of recovery under lease of premises in Mexico covered by CDA) Delhur Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-541C (Dec. 9, 2010) (denies all construction contract claims for defective specs, extra work, and delays because of a failure of proof by the contractor) Lawndale Restoration Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 09-798C (Nov. 23, 2010) (grants Government's motion for summary judgment on breach claim) D'Andrea Brothers, LLC v. United States, No. 08-286C (Nov. 18, 2010) (denies Government motion to dismiss claim that it had violated obligation of good faith and fair dealing under CRADA by bad-mouthing HooAH! energy bars) United Constructors, LLC v. United States, No. 08-757C (Oct. 18, 2010) (denies Type I Differing site Conditions claim because conditions were reasonably foreseeable at time of bidding; denies constructive acceleration claim because contractor's own delays contributed to the delay) Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-861C (Aug. 26, 2010) (contract interpretation; grants government motion for summary judgment because conditions did not exist for extending timber sales contract beyond its normal 10-year limit) Englewood Terrace Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 03-2209C (July 30, 2010) (awards contract breach damages but rejects (for lack of evidence) claim for "lost equity damages" following HUD's breach of housing assistance payment contract) Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-613C (June 9, 2010) (denies cross motions for summary judgment in dispute involving alleged government breach of contract to lease surveillance software) Shell Oil Co. v. United States, No. 06-141C (May 27, 2010) (responsibility for CERCLA clean-up costs resulting from WWII gas contracts; Anti-Deficiency Act; contract interpretation; dictionary meaning; scope of settlement agreement and release) Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., et al. v. United States, Nos. 04-1692C, et al. (May 26, 2010) (breach of contract, breach of warranty of specifications; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; lost productivity; delay claims; critical path; calculation of damages; government counterclaim; government responsibility for labor shortage and resulting higher wages) Retirement Communities LLC v. United States, No. 09-343C (May 19, 2010) (lease interpretation; plain meaning; n ambiguity) Nycal Offshore Development Corp. v. United States, No. 05-249C (Apr. 9, 2010) (allows claim for lost profits by lessee (based on government breach) to proceed despite fact that plaintiff's co-lessees had previously elected remedy of restitution) BioFunction, LLC v. United States, No. 07-87C (Mar. 26, 2010) (government employee who entered "side agreement" to contract with plaintiff lacked authority and the side agreement did not provide for monetary compensation) IMS Engineers-Architects, P.C. v. United States, No. 07-291C (Mar. 18, 2010) (contractor knew about Government's improper contract administration and termination prior to the time it signed a release, which was, therefore, knowing, valid, and enforceable release) C. R. Pittman Construction Co. v. United States, No. 08-196C (Mar. 10, 2010) (construction contract; contract interpretation of Damage to Work clause and responsibility for damage to equipment caused by Hurricane Katrina; plain meaning prevails; no exceptions for course of dealing) Haddon Housing Associates, LLC, et al. v. United States, No. 07-646C (Mar. 10, 2010) (contract interpretation; waiver; insufficient record to decide cross motions for summary judgment) Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. United States, No. 08-501C (Feb. 16, 2010) (contract interpretation; enforcement of non-waiver clause in contract; Government right to setoff against payment otherwise due contractor) LB&B Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-430C (Feb. 3, 2010) (constructive change; performance specifications; level of management required; contract interpretation) Digital Technologies v. United States, No. 08-604C (Dec. 9, 2009) (claim for breach of contract as a result of Government's alleged failure to comply with contract clauses guaranteeing contractor a fair opportunity to compete for orders under ID/IQ contract was a CDA claim, not a bid protest) Distributed Postal Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-17C (Dec. 7, 2009) (Postal Service did not breach contract by terminating it in reliance on individual who fraudulently misrepresented his status as agent of contractor and who falsely represented that was the contractor's desire) Jay Cashman, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-101C (Aug. 4, 2009) (cross motions for summary judgment largely denied re dredging contract; contract interpretation; patent ambiguity; duty to cooperate) Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. United States, No. 08-501C (July 22, 2009) (contract interpretation; latent ambiguity construed against the party that drafted it) Canal 66 Partnership d/b/a Doubletree Hotel v. United States, No. 08-88C (July 15, 2009) (denies motions for summary judgment because both parties' interpretations of an ambiguous contract are reasonable and extrinsic evidence will have to be examined to resolves the issue) IMS Engineers-Architects, P.C. v. United States, No. 07-291C (June 26, 2009) (despite oral promises to order more, government orders of minimum amounts under ID/IQ contracts satisfied those contracts' only requirements and did not violate obligation of good faith and fair dealing; issue whether release is void for bad faith dealing by the Government in negotiating it) MNS Wind Co, LLC v. United States, No. 04-1569C (May 15, 2009) (Government's breach of easement agreement by deciding not to fulfill the steps it required to implement it) Dick Pacific GHEEM/JV v. United States, No. 08-417C (May 11, 2009) (contract interpretation; nonstandard use of Economic Price Adjustment clause; Davis Bacon Act; CDA certification issues) Michael W. Stovall v. United States, No. 05-400C (May 5, 2009) (interpretation of settlement agreement; parol evidence; attorney-client privilege; waiver; request for reconsideration) Tecom, Inc. v. United States, No. 00-475C (Mar. 25, 2009) (calculation of many categories of damages on breach of contract claim brought by prime on behalf of sub, including sub's lost profit resulting from government breach and prime's right to add profit onto subcontractor's claim) Laudes Corp. v. United States, No. 08-121C (Mar. 16, 2009) (PCO's "involvement" in contract not sufficient to create to create implied-in-fact contract where Government never appropriated funds for contract and the Government was not a party to the contract at issue; requirements for finding of implied-in-fact contract) Scott Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-708C (Feb. 27, 2009) (Government's unreasonable suspensions of them breached timber sales contracts ) Blue Lake Forest Products, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 01-570C et al (Feb. 27, 2009) (denies cross motions for summary judgment; alleged breach of timber sales contracts; suspension of work; implied duty to cooperate; consequential damages) Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1366C (Dec. 8, 2008) (Government's breach of Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to use and distribute proprietary information concerning plaintiff's munitions conveyor equipment in a new procurement for such equipment) Hallwood Plaza, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-589C (Dec. 5, 2008) (lease agreement; mistake in bid; unilateral mistake) Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-079C (Dec. 3, 2008) (contract interpretation--scope of release language; CDA breach claims; Pub. L. 85-804; indemnification issues) San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District v. United States, No. 06-576C (Dec. 3, 2008) (contract interpretation; breach of contract provision to maintain accounts; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) Lublin Corp. t/a Century 21, Advantage Gold v. United States, No. 07-206C (Dec. 3, 2008) (31 U.S.C. 1501(a) is not a statute of frauds preventing the existence of oral contracts involving the federal government) Benjamin & Shaki Alli and BSA Corp. v. United States, No. (Aug. 26, 2008) (breach of contract; non-CDA case) Burchick Construction Co. v. United States, No. 08-15C (Aug. 6, 2008) (contract interpretation; ambiguous contract; not suitable for summary judgment) S & M Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-155C (June 16, 2008) (failure to complete postconstruction punchlist; contract modification; trade practice as an aid to interpretation; contract interpretation; delegation of authority; implied authority) Metric Construction Co. v. United States, No. 04-635C (May 21, 2008) (construction contract delays; constructive changes; government interference with the work; defective specifications) Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, No. 02-796C (May 6, 2008) (requirements and limitations on constructive change doctrine; bad faith termination) Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-720 (May 2, 2008) (calculation of damages from breach of timber sales contract, denying Government's motion for reconsideration and contractor's tardy attempt to introduce discount factor into its calculations) Bell BCI Co. v. United States, No. 03-1613C (Apr. 21, 2008)(construction contract; cumulative impact claim for effects of multiple changes; failure to present evidence of subcontractor's claims) Harper/Nielsen-Dillingham, Builders, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-269C (Apr. 29, 2008) (Severin doctrine; prime's action on behalf of sub dismissed because prime has no liability to sub; "No Damages for Delay" clause) Stout Road Associates, Inc., t/a Hilton Philadelphia City Avenue v. United States, No. 07-145C (Mar. 14, 2008) (lack of authority to bind Government) Shell Oil Co., et al. v. United States, No. 06-141C (Feb. 8, 2008) (liability of Government to contractor for cleanup costs required by CERCLA) Enron Federal Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1000C (Feb. 7, 2008) (privatization contract; consequences of material breach) Manhattan Construction Co. v. United States, No. 05-376C (Jan. 31, 2008) (patent ambiguity; duty to inquire) Stevens Van Lines, Inc., et al v. United States, No. 05-1278 (Jan. 23, 2008) (implied actual authority to contract) Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-639C (Jan. 23, 2008) (breach of contract; duty to cooperate; withholding of superior knowledge) Metric Construction Co. v. United States, No. 04-954C (Jan. 7, 2007) (construction contract; constructive change; defective specifications; misrepresentation; rough calculation of damages) William Hooker d/b/a Georgia Bowhunters Supply v. United States, No. 03-1501C (Nov. 28, 2007) (directed verdict at end of plaintiff's case; differing site conditions) Gasa, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-642 (Nov. 28, 2007) (dredging contract; delays; concurrent delays; contract interpretation) Industrial Door Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-411C (Nov. 2, 2007) (breach of settlement agreement; lost profits as element of damages) Morse Diesel International, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-279C (Oct. 31, 2007) (Anti-Kickback Act; False Claims Act) Northern States Power Co. v. United States, No. 98-484-C (Sept. 26, 2007) (recoverable mitigation costs after contract breach) TMI Management Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-407C (Sept. 25, 2007) (Government's discretion to exercise option) Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 98-720C (Sept. 14, 2007) (timber sales contract; damages calculation) Arko Executive Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 05-1193C, 06-0296C (Sept. 12, 2007) ("Option to Extend Services" clause) Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No. 04-461C (Sept 7, 2007) (defective specifications and delays) PDR, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-2047 (Aug. 30, 2007) (USAF Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) North Hartland, L.C.C. v. United States, No. 06-495C (Aug. 27, 2007) (requirements for privity of contract with United States) Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-595C (Aug. 14, 2007) (contract interpretation; incorporation by reference; breach of warranty) Praecomm, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-54C (Aug. 9, 2007) (convenience termination vs. deductive change; covenant of good faith and fair dealing) Oak Environmental Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-113C (Aug. 6, 2007) (suspension of performance; convenience termination; Eichleay) Advanced Team Concepts v. United States, No. 02-197C (June 8, 2007) (Christian doctrine) P.R. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-30C (May 31, 2007) (CDA Jurisdiction; contract interpretation; parol evidence; VEQ clause) M.A. DeAtley Constr. v. United States, No. 04-1052C (Mar 30, 2007)(false and fraudulent claims) M.A. DeAtley Constr., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1052C (Feb. 28, 2007) (defective specifications, differing site conditions, constructive changes, presentation of claims to Contracting Officer) AAB Joint Venture v. United States, No. 04-1792C (Feb. 2, 2007) (implied warranty of specifications) AAB Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 04-1719C et al (Jan. 26, 2007) (various construction contract issues) Morse Diesel International, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-529C et al (Jan. 26, 2007)(construction contract false claims and anti-kickback issues) Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-20C (Jan. 4, 2007)(contract interpretation) Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-131C (Dec. 22, 2006) (timber sales contract; computation of damages from contractor's breach; contract interpretation; penalty and interest charges) Phillip J. LaVezzo d/b/a DKO Technologies, No. 05-575C (Dec. 7, 2006) (authority of another to sign contract on behalf of sole proprietor; lack of independent and unbiased contracting officer's decision on claim) Harold Robert Pilley, pro se, v. United States, No. 05-382C (Nov. 30, 2006) (timing of reduction to practice under "Patent Rights" clause) Travelers Casualty & Surety of America v. United States, Nos. 02-584C; 03-1548C (Nov. 22, 2006) (patent ambiguity; failure to inquire; Spearin doctrine; defective design drawings) Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No. 04-1757C (Nov. 17, 2006) (HUD HAP contracts: government breach; Tucker Act statute of limitations; continuing claims doctrine) California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-116C (Nov. 6, 2006) (interpretation of lease; Government's breach of lessee option to extend term of lease; foreseeability of lost profits as damages) DeMarco Durzo Development Co. v. United States, No. 03-2263C (Oct. 31, 2006) (interpretation of time periods required by early termination notice provisions in lease) Information International Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1489C (Oct. 31, 2006) (reformation of contract due to unilateral mistake in bid established by contractor; requisites for a CDA claim; deemed denial of claim) Trafalgar House Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-363C (Oct. 31, 2006) (defective CDA certification; differing site conditions) O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-272C (Oct. 31, 2006) (Merchant Marine Act; third party beneficiary; implied-in-fact contract) Metric Construction Co. v. United States, no. 04-954C (Oct. 26, 2006) (denies motion for summary judgment; constructive change doctrine; defective specifications; misrepresentation) Daewoo Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 02-1914C (Oct. 13, 2006) (construction contract; bad faith bidding with intent to recover later on contract claims, fraudulent claims) Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States, No. 05-168L (Oct. 2, 2006) (construction contract interpretation; Sovereign Acts defense) Die Casters International, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1113C (Sep. 28, 2006) (no damages suffered as a result of Government's breach of "Limitation of Costs" clause) La Gloria Oil and Gas Co. v. United States, No. 02-465C (Sep. 28, 2006) (appropriate price adjustment indices for use in DESC fuel supply contracts) Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 98-720C (Sep. 19, 2006) (recovery of lost profits as a result of prolonged government suspensions of timber sales contracts) Conoco Phillips, et al. v United States, No. 02-1367C (Sep. 12, 2006) (DESC fuel supply contract; price adjustment) J. Leonard Spodek, et al. v. United States, No. 03-1444C (Sep. 8, 2006) (responsibility for maintenance and repairs on Postal Service building lease; mutual breach; apportionment of damages) New Valley Corp. v. United States, No. 94-785C (Aug. 30, 2006) (appropriate measure of damages for Government's anticipatory repudiation of contract to utilize best efforts to launch satellite) City Crescent Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 05-580C (July 10, 2006) (Government's continuing obligation to pay real estate taxes under GSA lease extension) Statesman II Apartments, Inc., et al., v. United States, Nos. 04-805C, -806C (June 29, 2006) (breach of HUD contracts for housing assistance payments) M.A. DeAtley Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1052C (June 22, 2006) (rejection of delivered material; economic waste; failure to mitigate; defective specifications; differing site conditions) Telenor Satellite Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-528C (June 2, 2006) (bailment agreement was ratified by individual who had authority to bind the Government) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365C (May 31, 2006) (reliance damages based on alleged breach of Equity Process Agreement) Edward T. Arakaki and Helen Arakaki v. United States, No. 03-1874C (May 30, 2006) (jurisdiction and standing; lack of express or implied authority of government agent to bind Government; lack of contract) Clearwater Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-351C (Apr. 28, 2006) (contract interpretation; defective specifications; latent versus patent ambiguities in specifications; delay) Universal Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 03-1502, -2370 (Apr. 18, 2006) (differing site conditions; motions for summary judgment; modification which allowed two alternative methods of performance was not directed change) Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-299C (Mar. 31, 2006) (construction contract; differing site conditions; return of liquidated damages; defective specifications; excusable and compensable delay; Eichleay damages; requisites for Contract Disputes Act claim; presentation of claim to Contracting Officer) Engineered Demolition, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-2231C (Mar. 28, 2006) (supplementation of claim to Contracting Officer; patent ambiguity in specs) American Floor Consultants and Installations, Inc. and Clayton W. King v. United States, No. 05-921C (Mar. 14, 2006) (government official lacked authority to bind Government to agreement that plaintiff would not be debarred; agreement promised no criminal investigation; debarment is civil proceeding) Jerry C. Mills d/b/a JCM Timber Co. v. United States, No. 05-216C (Jan 31, 2006) (no "present intent" by Government to modify timber sales contract to change contract rates)
Costs; Cost Accounting Standards
General Motors Corp. v. United States, No. 00-40 C (Oct. 10, 2013) (under original CAS 413.50(e)(12), contractor was entitled to include pension benefit improvements adopted in the regular course of business just before segment closing date in segment closing adjustment, denying Government's contention that such inclusion resulted in an "inequitable calculation" and that an alternate segment closing adjustment date should be used in order to exclude those benefits) General Electric Co. v. United States, No. 99-172 C (July 18. 2013) (summary judgment resolution of some issues concerning proper segment closing adjustment under CAS 413.50(c)(12)) Unisys Corp. v. United States, No. 05-281 C (June 3, 2013) (after CAS 413 segment closing adjustments, contractor does not owe the Government any additional amounts) Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844 C, 10-741 C (Mar. 27, 2013) (denies Government's claim that contractor had violated CAS 418-50 in allocating material overhead because, since management and supervision costs contained within the materiel overhead pool were insignificant relative to the entire pool, CAS 418-50(e) rather than CAS 418–50(d) applied, and, because first two allocation bases permitted by (e) were impractical, contractor properly reverted to the third alternative base (in the contractor's case, direct labor), which complied with CAS 418–50(e) because that allocation base varied in proportion to materiel overhead costs during the relevant periods and, thus, was an acceptable means of measuring the resources consumed in connection with pool activities) Veridyne Corp. v. United States, No. 06-150 C (Nov. 5, 2012) (government claim for costs of reviewing unsupported parts of plaintiff's CDA claim under anti-fraud provisions of CDA: 41 U.S.C. 7103(c)(2)) Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 09-428 C, 09-578 C (Sep. 27, 2012) (reasonableness of subcontractor costs related to cost reimbursable prime contract for provision of dining facility services during periods of rapid troop surges in wartime in Iraq) Raytheon C. v. United States, No. 05-448 C (July 16, 2012) (post-1995 CAS 413 segment-closing adjustment case; (i) parties did not intend e waiver language ( which was taken from FAR 42.1204(i)) in novation agreement relating to individual segment closings to bar Raytheon's CAS 413 claim because language was contract-specific whereas CAS 413 claims were not; (ii) Raytheon’s reliance on "last place worked" methodology to determine share of pension assets attributable to AIS segment was compliant with CAS 413-50(c)(12); (iii) linear interpolation was reasonable method for Raytheon to utilize in estimating pension plan assets, and it complied with CAS 413-50(c)(12)(iii)’s requirement to utilize market value of assets as of date of segment closing; (iv) Raytheon's use of one-hundred percent retirement assumption with regard to retirement of retirement-eligible plan participants in preparing segment closing calculations was reasonable and CAS-compliant; (v) Raytheon reasonably followed illustration in CAS 413-60(c)(9) and utilized sales data as proxy for pension cost data when performing CAS 413 government share calculations, where reasonable search for historical data was performed, and actual pension cost data could not be located; (vi) court lacked jurisdiction over Government's equitable adjustment claim, as well as set-off claim it first raised during trial; (vii) Raytheon’s Optical segment closing adjustment calculation did not comply with CAS requirements ( found in CAS 413-50(c)(12)(ii) and CAS 413-50(c)(5)) for allocating assets from a single composite pension plan to Optical segment; and (viii) PWF was not "segment" within the meaning of CAS 413-30(a)(19), and, therefore, its sale did not trigger need for segment closing adjustment. SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-453 C (June 18, 2012) (NAFI contractor could recover attorneys' contingent fees incurred before appeal of claim to ASBCA) Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-351 C (May 2, 2012) (contractor's burden proving reasonableness of claimed costs; government counterclaims for violations of Anti-Kickback Act and common law fraud) Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844C, 10-741C (Nov. 30, 2011) (interpretation of CAS 418-50(d) and (e)) Scott Timber Co. v. United States, No. 05-708C (Apr. 5, 2011) (determination of damages, including lost profits, due contractor for Government's breach of timber sales contracts) Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 05-448C (Jan. 26, 2011) (Government is entitled to equitable adjustment to the extent that application of revised CAS 413 to segment closing results in the Government owing more under revised CAS for pension costs attributable to pension costs arising under original CAS 413 contracts) Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 05-448C (Apr. 29, 2010) (post retirement benefit costs are not pension costs under CAS 412 and cannot be included in segment closing adjustments under CAS 413) General Electric. Co. v. United States, No. 99-172C (Apr. 29, 2010) (Pay-As-You-Go post-retirement benefit costs are not covered by CAS 413 and cannot be included in segment closing adjustments) CBS Corp. v. United States, No. 01-79C (Dec. 8, 2009) (determination of correct segment closing date under the original version of CAS 413-50(c)(12) (1986)) CBS Corp. v. United States, No. 01-79C (Dec. 8, 2009) (liability for pension deficit transferred in a segment sale to another company pursuant to segment closing) DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1414C (Oct. 14, 2009) (CAS 413 segment closing; summary judgment for contractor that it had satisfied all obligations to the Government because the Government received the value of the contractor's CAS 413 segment closing obligation through a cost reduction from the successor contractors) Teknowledge Corp. v. United States, No. 06-310C (Jan. 7, 2009) (software development costs were not allocable to government contract because there was no showing of a nexus between the software and any government contract work or benefit from the software to such work) General Electric Co. V. United States, No. 99-172C (Sep. 29, 2008) (CAS 413.50(c)(12) segment closing adjustment) General Motors Corp. v. United States, No. 00-40C (Sept. 14, 2007) (CAS 412, 413, 414 issues) SSA Marine, Inc. V. United States, No. 05-490C (July 31, 2007) (fee limits on cost reimbursable contract) AT&T Corp. and Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1511, 0512 (Apr.26, 2007) (CAS 413; segment closing) CBS Corporation v. United States, No. 01-79C, (Feb. 21, 2007) (CAS 413.50(c)(3)) The Boeing Company v. United States, No. 91-1362C (Jan. 17, 2007)(cost contract award fee) Viacom, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-79C (May 8, 2006) (pension deficit; segment closing adjustment; CAS 413.50(c)(12); Limitation of Costs and Limitation of Funds clauses) Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. United States, No. 91-1362C (Mar. 10, 2006) (whether cases involving same contract but different issues may be tried simultaneously in Court of Federal Claims and before agency board of contract appeals; Government's request to amend answer; award fees; contractor's costs of defense) Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, No. 00-129C (Mar. 29, 2006) (CAS 418; offsets between fixed-price and flexibly-priced contracts; necessity for first presenting claims to Contracting Officer) A.K. Suda, Inc. v. United States, No. 00-172C (Feb. 9, 2006) (CAS 415 and cost base and allocation issues)
Coffee Connections, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-048 C (Dec. 3, 2013) (CDA language improperly inserted in Disputes clause of non-CDA AAFES concessions contract is unenforceable; AAFES properly terminated contract for unsanitary conditions under Default clause that permitted immediate termination by either party for breach) Zip-O-Log Mills, Inc., d/b/a Zip-O Timber Co. v. United States, No. 04-1123 C (Sep. 30,2013) (timber sales contract was effectively terminated for convenience when the Government ceased actions that would permit it to fulfill its obligations, not the years-later date when the Government finally acknowledged the obvious by sending a termination letter) Gulf Group General Enterprises Co., W.L.L. v. United States, Nos. 06-835 C, et al (July 17, 2013) (propriety of three terminations and claim for extra work; counterclaims alleging violations of False Claims Act and Sovereign Acts doctrine as defense) Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-436 C (Apr. 30, 2013) (government cancellation of purchase order for failure to supply exact part mentioned in purchase order was unreasonable because neither RFQ nor plaintiff's quotation mentioned that part and plaintiff reasonably believed that reference in purchase order was just historical; government counterclaims in fraud fail because plaintiff's claims were based on its clearly stated disagreement with Government's view of legal issues) M.E.S., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-92 (May 23, 2012) (court lacks subject matter and ancillary jurisdiction over bonding company's claims in intervention that (a) plaintiff should be required (i) to pay to bonding company any recovery by plaintiff to the extent of bonding company's bond losses and (ii) to pay into court any remaining balance on plaintiff's affirmative recovery . . . to be held for the benefit of bonding company as a set-off against any potential award in a separate federal district court lawsuit and (b) court should issue declaratory judgment that in the event of an affirmative recovery by plaintiff against the Government, the claims alleged against the bonding company by the Government in the district court suit with respect to the alleged excess reprocurement costs are subject to setoff to the extent of any such affirmative recovery by the Government against the plaintiff; CDA statute of limitations with regard for claim for excess reprocurement costs begins to run when Government pays reprocurement contractor, not when original default termination is issued; Government, nevertheless, unreasonably delayed reprocurement) 5860 Chicago Ridge, LLC v. United States, Nos. 07-680 C, 09-576 C (Apr. 27, 2012) (default termination of building lease for longstanding water leak problems upheld despite Government's failure to strictly comply with cure period requirements because contractor could not have performed within cure period; Government failed to meet burden of proof to justify excess reprocurement costs) Philip Emiabata d/b/a/ NOVA EXPRESS v. United States, Nos. 07-653 C, 09-339 C (Jan. 18, 2012) (Government properly terminated Postal Services contract for default after contractor failed to provide proof that it had obtained the contractually-required liability insurance that would enable it to begin performance) Martin Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-236C (Dec. 20, 2011) (improper termination for default converted to termination for convenience because performance delays were caused by defective government design) White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-961C et al. (Sep. 22, 2011) (calculation of termination for convenience settlement costs) NCLN20, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-1282C (July 21, 2011) (termination not made in bad faith; cure notice providing only one day to cure was improper) AEY, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-330C (May 24, 2011) (upholds default termination despite contractor's claim of estoppel because the Contracting Officer did not have authority to accept nonconforming supplies) OK's Cascade Co. v. United States, No. 07-702C (Feb. 25, 2011) (contractor whose protested contract was terminated for convenience and replaced by another contract for essentially the same work was not entitled to termination for convenience claim recovery) Armour of America v. United States, No. 04-1731C (Jan. 10, 2011) (denies contractor's claims that default termination (for failure to make progress) was made in bad faith and that the Government breached duty of cooperation and duty not to hinder performance; grants government counterclaim for excess reprocurement costs) Wonderlyn Lorraine Bell Pinckney v. United States, No. (Nov. 20, 2009) (denies contractor's motion for reconsideration of decision that default termination (while improper) was not made in bad faith) United Partition Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-1242C (Nov. 19, 2009) (conversion of improper default termination to a termination for convenience; improper refusal of Air Force to refer contractor's claims of excuse to government's charges of default to proper GSA contracting officer) Takota Corp. v. United States, No. 06-553C (Oct. 28, 2009) (upholds default termination of construction contract for contractor's failure to comply with material shoring requirements -- by summarily dismissing contractor's claim for conversion to a convenience termination) Wonderlyn Lorraine Bell Pinckney v. United States, No. 06-803C (July 28, 2009) (improper default termination of mail delivery contract for allegedly returning from mail route with deliverable mail that had not been delivered) Todd Construction L.P. v. United States, No. 07-324C (July 22, 2009) (faulty agency performance evaluations; scope and limits on court's power to remand case to procuring agency with "proper and just" instructions) Universal Shelters of America v. United States, No. 00-726C (May 12, 2009) (termination for cause of commercial items contract; substantial compliance; implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) Keeter Trading Co. v. United States, No. 05-243C (Feb. 3, 2009) (awards breach of contract damages for Postal Service's bad faith default termination) Bearingpoint, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-631C (May 28, 2008) (multiple award schedule contract; unauthorized termination of task order) John Snow, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-97C (Oct. 12, 2007) (government cost disallowance and offset for post acceptance rejection of nonconforming items ) Oak Environmental Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-113C (Aug. 6, 2007) (suspension of performance; convenience termination; Eichleay) McDonnell Douglas Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, No. 91-1204C (May 3 , 2007)(default termination) Bearingpoint, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-675C (Apr. 30, 2007)(authority to default terminate FSS contracts) Moreland Corp. v. United States, No. 03-2154C (Apr. 18, 2007)(CDA; default termination; lease agreement) Axion Corp v. United States, Nos. 03-2644C, 04-297C (Jan. 25, 2007)(default termination and excuses) C.D. Hayes, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-376C (Nov. 30, 2006) (default termination by Government does not confer jurisdiction on court for plaintiff's affirmative claims for conversion to termination for convenience; law of the case doctrine) Kaeper Machine, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-183C (Nov. 16, 2006) (purchase order lapsed when contractor failed to deliver in accordance with extended delivery date; elements of equitable estoppel against Government are not present) Susan S. Fahey v. United States, No. 04-1540C, (May 31, 2006) (dismisses breach of contract claim for alleged failure of government to notify plaintiff of appeal rights; allegation of bad faith termination for convenience of mail delivery contracts) Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-299C (Mar. 31, 2006) (construction contract; differing site conditions; return of liquidated damages; defective specifications; excusable and compensable delay; Eichleay damages; requisites for Contract Disputes Act claim; presentation of claim to Contracting Officer) Smart Business Machines v. United States, No. 05-447C (Feb. 9, 2006) (purchase order lapsed after delivery date passed; mere fact that government agent witnessed plaintiff working after that date does not give rise to claim of equitable estoppel)
Equal Access to Justice Act; Attorneys' Fees; Interest; Prompt Payment International Industrial Park, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-691C (Dec. 21, 2011) (on reconsideration, holds plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees regardless of applicability of EAJA because the contract specifically provided for such recovery) United Partition Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-1242C (Oct. 12, 2010) (whether the Government's position was "substantially justified"; recoverability of court reporter and copying expenses under EAJA) The Marquardt Co. v. United States, No. 09-642C (Oct. 8, 2010) (contractor not entitled to CDA or PPA interest on time required for Government to make payments under global settlement agreement of various underlying contracts) Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 99-400 c/w 01-708C (Aug. 11, 2010) (firm meets size standard for EAJA award; additional documentation required to establish recoverable attorneys' fees) The Dallas Irrigation District v. United States, No. 05-1042 (Mar. 2, 2010) (recoverability of various types of costs, including attorney fees, legal research fees, COLA adjustment, enhanced award, paralegal fees, attorney travel expenses, and costs of deposition, hearing, and trial transcripts) Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 99-400 c/w 01-708C (Oct. 23, 2009) (directs supplementation of record to fully understand and assess EAJA application involving Italian documents) Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-131C (Sep. 9, 2008) (EAJA; government counterclaim for breach of timber sales contracts) Metric Construction Co. v. United States, No. 04-954C (Sept. 3, 2008) (EAJA; substantial justification) North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States, Nos. 98-168C, 02-1632C, 03-2699C (Jan. 9, 2009) (denies plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees and litigation expenses; "bad faith" exception to American rule for litigation fees) PCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 95-666C, 96-442C (Nov. 14, 2008) (Prompt Payment Act interest versus Contract Disputes Act interest) JGB Enterprises Inc. v. United States, No. 01-680C (Aug. 7, 2008) (Equal Access to Justice Act; recovery of attorneys fees) International Air Response, Inc. v. United States, No. 00-428C (Apr. 2, 2008) (denying motion for reconsideration of EAJA award) Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-299C (Mar. 20, 2008) (EAJA; substantial justification; cost of living adjusted rate for attorneys' fees) Bill Hubbard v. United States, No. 95-396C (Jan. 28, 2008) (EAJA calculation) Sarang Corp. v. United States, No. 06-506C (May 25, 2007) (CDA Claim; PPA interest) Asphalt Sup. & Serv., Inc. v. United States, No. 02-978C (Mar. 5, 2007) (EAJA) The Sweetwater, a Wilderness Lodge, LLC v. United States, No. 02-1795C (Feb. 9, 2007) (EAJA) Die Casters International, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1113C (Nov. 30, 2006) (awards Government costs as prevailing party of presenting live testimony of foreign witness as required by contractor) Inversa, S.A., et al., v. United States, No. 01-220C (Oct. 23, 2006) (eight-year long dispute leading to litigation does not constitute administrative payment delay falling within Prompt Payment Act, but rather within CDA)
Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel Yankee Atomic Electric Co., et al. v. United States, Nos. 07-875, -876, -877 C (Nov. 14, 2013) (elements of recoverable damages, including lobbying costs and litigation costs) Portland General Electric Co., et al. v. United States, No. 04-09 C (Nov. 30, 2012) (elements of damages; calculation of damages) Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, No. 04-106 C (July 20, 2012) (denies Government's motion to reconsider decision reinstating court's post-trial award to plaintiff of full amount of mitigation damages that plaintiff sought for costs incurred relating to Private Fuel Storage, LLC) Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, No. 04-106 C (May 2, 2012) (on remand from CAFC, court determines that all costs invested in Power Fuel Storage, LLC, were recoverable as costs in mitigation of breach rather than speculation) Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, No. 04-106 C (March 2, 2012) (denies government motion to reopen evidentiary record on remand in part because proffered evidence could have been, but was not, presented during original trial) Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, et al. v. United States, No. 03-3627C (Nov. 3, 2011) (denies motion to reconsider prior decision striking Government's Unavoidable Delays defense) Portland General Electric Co., et al. v. United States, No. 04-09C (Aug. 26, 2011) (unavailability of repository is not affirmative defense to claim for breach for Government's failure to accept spent nuclear fuel) Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. United States, et al., No. 04-118C (July 29, 2011) (unavoidable and avoidable delays clauses) Power Authority of the State of New York v. United States, No. 00-703C (July 20, 2011) (offset of loading costs; avoided or deferred costs; assignment of contract; speculative future costs) Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, et al. v. United States, No. 03-2627C (July 15, 2011) (offset of loading costs; avoided or deferred costs; speculative future costs) Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. 04-037C (June 14, 2011) (calculation of damages; full core reserve) Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., et al. v. United States, Nos. 04-125C, 04-124C (Apr. 22, 2011) (takings versus breach of contract claims) Kansas Gas & Electric Co., et al. v. United States, No. 04-99C (Nov. 30, 2010) (claims for (i) damages in mitigation of breach and (ii) overhead allocable to capital improvements necessitated by breach) Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, et al., v. United States, No. 03-2663C (Sep. 29, 2010) (mitigation damages; costs of compliance with state legislative requirements; preemption doctrine; cost of capital) Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C (Sep. 7, 2010) (calculation of damages attributable to contract breaches caused by substantial government delays) Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, et al., v. United States, No. 03-2627C (Aug. 3, 2010) (timing of Government's assertion of affirmative defense of "unavoidable delays"; laches; waiver) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 03-2622C, 04-33C (July 9, 2010) (motion for reconsideration of prior decision denied) Arizona Public Service Co. v. United States, No. 03-2832 (June 18, 2010) (breach damages; overhead costs) Southern California Edison Co. v. United States, No. 04-0109C (June 3, 2010) (partial breach; damages in mitigation; causation; foreseeability and reasonable certainty; other breach issues) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc, et al., v. United States, Nos. 03-2622C, 04-33 (May 17, 2010) (mitigation damages due to DOS's partial breach; diminution in sales price; assignment of Standard Contract) Boston Edison Co. v. United States, Nos. 99-447C, 03-2626C (May 12, 2010) (damages; foreseeability; causation; diminution in value) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, No. 04-74C c/w 04-75C (Mar. 30, 2010) (reasonable and foreseeable costs attributable to Government's partial breach of Standard Contract) Systems Fuels, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-2624C (Mar. 11, 2010) (reconsideration in light of Federal Circuit decisions: recoverability as mitigation damages of cost of money borrowed as a result of government breach; analysis of causation in determining breach damages) Energy Northwest v. United States, No. 04-10 (Feb. 26, 2010) (Acceptance Capacity Schedule; Annual Priority Ranking; Mitigation; Dry Storage; Overhead; Cost of Capital) Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, No. 98-488C (Dec. 30, 2009) (Standard Contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel; calculation of damages for breach) Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, No. 04-106C (Dec. 23, 2009) (Standard Contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel; measure of damages for government breach; foreseeable damages) Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United States, No. 00-697C (Dec. 18, 2009) (Standard Contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel; mitigation of damages; offset; waiver) Boston Edison Co. and Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. United States, Nos. 99-447C, 03-2626C (Feb. 20, 2008) (breach of Standard Contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel) Systems Fuels, Inc. et al v. United States, No. 03-2624C (Oct. 11, 2007) (breach of DOE Standard Contract for storage of nuclear waste) Nebraska Public Power District v. United States, No. 01-116C (Oct. 31, 2006) (spent nuclear fuel case; mandamus) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., et al., v. United States, Nos. 02-898C, 03-2663C (Oct. 19, 2006) (spent nuclear fuel case) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, No. 04-74C (Oct. 13, 2006) (spent nuclear fuel case) Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C (Oct. 4, 2006) (Standard Contract; spent nuclear fuel) Standard Fuels, Inc. and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. United States, No 03-2623C (Sep. 29, 2006) (Standard Contract; spent nuclear fuels case) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-74C, -75C (Apr. 25, 2006) (spent nuclear fuel case; restitution) Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, No. 98-488C (Mar. 31, 2006) (breach of Standard Contract; mitigation damages) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-74C, -75C (Mar. 30, 2006) (spent nuclear fuel case; damages that post-date filing of complaint) Tennessee Valley Authority v. United States, No. 01-249C (Jan. 31, 2006) (Standard Contract; spent nuclear fuel case; remedies for sequential partial breaches) Energy Northwest v. United States, No. 04-10C (Jan. 30, 2006) (Standard Contract; spent nuclear fuel case; pre-breach mitigation damages; delay) Miller Act; Bonds; Equitable Subrogation; Anti-Assignment; Third Party Beneficiaries Red Hawk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-186 C (Feb. 13, 2013) (dismisses subcontractor's claim that Government's Contracting Officer fraudulently dispersed funds in violation of Anti-Assignment Act because subcontractor had no privity of contractor with Government and was not (and could not have been) an assignee) M.E.S., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-92 (May 23, 2012) (court lacks subject matter and ancillary jurisdiction over bonding company's claims in intervention that (a) plaintiff should be required (i) to pay to the bonding company any recovery by plaintiff to the extent of bonding company's bond losses and (ii) to pay into court any remaining balance on plaintiff's affirmative recovery . . . to be held for the benefit of bonding company as a set-off against any potential award in a separate federal district court lawsuit and (b) court should issue declaratory judgment that in the event of an affirmative recovery by plaintiff against the Government, the claims alleged against the bonding company by the Government in the district court suit with respect to the alleged excess reprocurement costs are subject to setoff to the extent of any such affirmative recovery by the Government against the plaintiff; CDA statute of limitations with regard for claim for excess reprocurement costs begins to run when Government pays reprocurement contractor, not when original default termination is issued; Government, nevertheless, unreasonably delayed reprocurement) Travelers Casualty & Security Co. of America v. United States,. No. 10-673 C (Jan. 25, 2012) (under Anti-Assignment Act, general liability insurer does not have standing to sue Government to recover amounts it paid to insured, and there is no jurisdiction under Tucker Act for general insurer to sue Government under theory of equitable subrogation) Simulation Technology, LLC, v. United States, No. 11-408 C (Jan. 25, 2012) (dismisses excusable delay claim that was not first presented to the Contracting Officer for a decision because claim presented to CO was not sufficiently similar to excusable delay claim to put CO on notice of it) M.E.S., Inc. v. United States, No. (June 30, 2011) (grants surety's motion to intervene in dispute over assessment of excess reprocurement costs between contractor and Postal Service because of surety's potential liability on performance bond) United Surety & Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 08-791C (Dec. 16, 2009) (equitable subrogation; motion for reconsideration of original decision denied) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty v. United States, No. (Nov. 25, 2009) (equitable subrogation; Government liable to surety for delay damages improperly assessed against bonded contractor; impairment of suretyship collateral) HAM Investments, LLC v. United States, No. 07-495C (Sep. 30, 2009) (the Government did not waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act and so as to recognize and approve an assignment, even though the Government provided the contractor information concerning how to make such an assignment) United Surety & Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 08-791C (June 30, 2009) (equitable subrogation; surety failed to give required notice of contractor's default or imminent default) Michael Kawa v. United States, No. 06-448C (Mar. 23, 2009) (res judicata; claim preclusion; issue preclusion; privity; substantive legal relationship; real party in interest; third-party beneficiary; assignment of right to payment; implied-in-fact contract; ratification) Texas National Bank f/k/a Mercedes National Bank v. United States, No. 07-355C (Mar. 6, 2009) (issues of fact concerning whether Government consented to assignments under Anti-Assignment statutes preclude summary judgment; statute of limitations for contract claims; accrual suspension rule) Michael Kawa v. United States, No. 06-448C (Mar. 23, 2009) (res judicata; claim preclusion; issue preclusion; privity; substantive legal relationship; real party in interest; third-party beneficiary; assignment of right to payment; implied-in-fact contract; ratification) United States Surety Co., et al v. United States, No. 07-638C (Aug. 28, 2008) (court grants summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Government's right to withhold liquidated damages from Miller Act surety under takeover agreement) American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 07-374C (Apr. 29, 2008) (surety bond; indemnity agreement with SBA) Nelson Construction Co. v. United States, No. 05-1205C (Oct. 29, 2007) (sovereign immunity; equitable subrogation; assignment; wrongful payment; suretyship) United States Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, No. 03-2811C (Sept. 12, 2007) (surety claim for contract completion following default termination of contractor) L. Tim Wagner, Liquidator of Amwest Surety Insurance Co, In Liquidation v. United States, No. 03-1418C (June 21, 2006) (lack of jurisdiction over claims arising out of payment bonds; Miller Act; performance bonds; takeover agreements) American Renovation and Constr. Co. et al v. United States, No. 06-813C (June 5, 2007) (construction contract; procedural issues; sureties as parties) O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-272C (Oct. 31, 2006) (Merchant Marine Act; third party beneficiary; implied-in-fact contract) Nova Casualty Co. v. United States, No., 04-1665C (Oct. 5, 2006) (construction contract performance and payment bonds; recovery for Government's mistaken payment) National American Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 04-1390C (Sep. 6, 2006) (equitable subrogation; Government's wrongful final payment directly to contractor) The Travelers Indemnity Company, Successor in Interest by Merger to Gulf Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 05-1252C (July 26, 2006) (mistaken release of retainage to contractor by Government after notice it was in default of its payment bond) Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 05-751C (June 2, 2006) (equitable subrogation; whether performance of contract was complete at time of allegedly improper payments by Government) Commercial Casualty Insurance Co. of Georgia v. United States, No. 03-2033C (May 26, 2006) (equitable subrogation; plaintiff surety who fulfills obligations to subcontractors under payment fund may step into shoes of government contractor as as subrogee and may rely on waiver of sovereign immunity in Tucker Act) Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, No. 04-1478C ( May 26, 2006) (equitable subrogation; failure of surety to notify Government of contractor's default before Government's allegedly mistaken disbursement of progress payments) Stockton East Water District, et al., v. United States, No. 04-541L (Apr. 10, 2006) (third party beneficiaries of contract) Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 04-254C (Feb. 27, 2006) (equitable subrogation; Miller Act payment bond; notice requirement: motions for summary judgment) Nova Casualty Co. v. United States, No. 04-1665C (Jan. 12, 2006) (equitable subrogation; payment bond; notice)
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844 C, 10-741 C (Aug. 20, 2013) (denies Government's post-hearing motion to effectively dissolve protective order while appeal still pending at Federal Circuit) Larrye Cheaves v. United States, No. 12-228 C (Jan. 10, 2013) (expert report on contract issue plaintiff claims is ambiguous is excluded because contract is not ambiguous and already incorporates the trade usage as to which the report is offered as evidence) C. R. Pittman Construction Co. v. United States, No. 08-196 C (Sep. 28, 2012) (denies cross motions for summary judgment on issues of negligence defense to Government claim; Sovereign Act doctrine; and impossibility) Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844 C, 10-741 C (Sep. 13, 2012) (Government waited too long after producing documents to assert deliberative process privilege) K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-914 C (Aug. 30, 2012) (sanctions the Government for failing to produce relevant documents during discovery and because one of its witnesses destroyed the documents after their existence became known and before plaintiff could examine them) Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844 C, 10-714 C (July 2012) (denies Government's motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's affirmative defenses of lapse of statute of limitations and accord and satisfaction because factual questions remain with regard to each) Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-236 C (Feb. 29, 2012) (rules on government motions to dismiss various claims for government breaches of non-disclosure agreement and alleged CRADA (which court views as likely to be a procurement contract)) Century Exploration New Orleans, Inc., And Champion Exploration, LLC v. United States, No. 11-54 C (Jan. 24, 2012) (contractor is not prohibited from asserting Fifth Amendment takings claim and breach of contract claim as alternative theories in same complaint) Structural Concepts, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1141 C (Jan. 24, 2012) (denies cross motions for partial summary judgment as to propriety of government counterclaims for liquidated damages because such damages cannot be quantified until after resolution of delay claims that have been reserved for trial on the merits) Veridyne Corp. v. United States, Nos. 06-150C, 07-646C (Dec. 5, 2011) (grants plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude testimony of SBA official on detrimental effect of fraud on SBA's 8(a) program as either expert or lay opinion testimony) Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-849C (Oct. 6, 2011) (disposition of various pretrial motions regarding discovery and evidence; testimony regarding fair market value of property is irrelevant where court has determined that, under contract, plaintiff's recovery is not limited to diminution of fair market value; expert's report to be used to prove truth of the statements therein is inadmissible hearsay; standards for allowing testimony of expert) Government Technical Services, LLC. v. United States, No. 10-403C (June 23, 2011) (grants unopposed motion to stay proceedings pending related criminal investigation) Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, No. 09-587C (May 17, 2011) (spent nuclear fuel case; motion to amend Complaint to include damages for time period after that covered by original Complaint is denied where notice of new damages came too late in discovery process) Gulf Group General Enterprises Co. W.L.L. v. United States, Nos. 06-835C et al. (May 14, 2011) (contractor can call as witness at trial a civilian attorney who helped Contracting Officer investigate facts underlying terminations for default and helped provide information used in court-ordered termination decisions) Gulf Group General Enterprises Co. W.L.L. v. United States, Nos. 06-835C et al. (May 2, 2011) (Army's regulations at 32 C.F.R. §§ 516.51(a) and 516.52, which purport to be an absolute bar against former Army employees providing expert testimony adverse to the United States, are invalid) Gulf Group General Enterprises Co. W.L.L. v. United States, Nos. 06-835C et al. (Jan. 3, 2011) (under attorney work-product doctrine, Government not entitled to transcript of pre-deposition interview of witness conducted by plaintiff's attorney) Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States, No. 09-938 (Oct. 26, 2010) (discovery disputes; recovery and production of electronic records) Croman Corp. v. United States, No. 01-40C (Aug. 9, 2010) (denies Government's motion to re-open discovery six months after it closed) Croman Corp. v. United States, No. 98-405C (Aug. 9, 2010) (denies Government's motion to re-open discovery six months after it closed) Gonzales-McCaulley Investment Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-641C (Aug. 3, 2010) (grants contractor leave to amend defective complaint, which had not alleged required elements for either a CDA claim or a bid protest) Scott Timber, Inc.. v. United States, No. 05-708C (July 28, 2010) (grants motion to allow testimony from remote site by video conference without other individuals in the room with the witness) Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-849C (July 6, 2010) (denies motion for reconsideration of portion of prior decision that damages for costs of restoration would be available to plaintiff if it were established that restoration of leased premises was required) Scott Timber, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-708C (July 1, 2010) (motion to preclude testimony by witnesses not disclosed to Government by the discovery deadline) Benjamin and Shaki Alli and BSA Corp. v. United States, No. 01-889C (June 11, 2010) (default judgment under RCFC 55 against corporation not represented by counsel) Nycal Offshore Development Corp. v. United States, No. 05-249C (Apr. 9, 2010) (allows claim for lost profits by lessee (based on government breach) to proceed despite fact that plaintiff's co-lessees had previously elected remedy of restitution) Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-861C (Nov. 30, 2009) (exhaustion of administrative remedies; stay pending further administrative actions) Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-127C (Aug 28, 2009) (discovery disputes; assertion of attorney-client and work product privileges; adequacy of descriptions in logs of allegedly protected documents) Veridyne Corp. v. United States, Nos. 06-150C, 07-647C (Apr. 16, 2009) (fraud; procedure; motion to amend answer and counterclaim) Englewood Terrace Ltd. Partnership v. United States, No. (Apr. 7, 2009) (tardy assertion of claim in motion for reconsideration of prior decision) Lan-Dale Co. v. United States, No. 03-1956C (Jan. 28, 2009) (Contract Disputes Act; 28 U.S.C. 1500; dismisses claim filed simultaneously in Court of Federal Claims and district court even though district court lacked jurisdiction) Zoltek Corp. v. United States, No. 96-166C (Jan. 23, 2009) (allows transfer of patent infringement claim to district court and substitution of government contractor for Government as defendant; 35 U.S.C. 271(g) versus 28 U.S.C. 1498) Multiservice Joint Venture, LLC v. United States, No. 06-312C (Dec. 23, 2008) (spoliation of evidence during break in deposition; refusal of plaintiff to testify to explain what occurred; sanctions--barring witness from testifying at trial; and imposition of plaintiff's costs of preparing motion for sanctions as personal assessment against defendant's counsel) Highqbpo, LLC v. United States, No. 08-70C (Oct. 29, 2008) (stay of contract disputed pending criminal proceedings) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365C (Aug. 28, 2008) (denies motion to certify earlier discovery orders for interlocutory appeal) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365C (Aug. 28, 2008) (attorney client-privilege; motion for reconsideration of earlier decision) CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-494C (June 18, 2008) (overlapping issues between Court of Federal Claims and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals cases; motion to consolidate; order to transfer court case to CBCA) Morse Diesel International, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-279C et al. (Mar. 19, 2008) (motion for reconsideration denied). West Bay Builders, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1140C (Mar. 14, 2008) (procedure; deemed admissions; failure to respond to discovery request) Northrop Grumman Corp., Military Aircraft Div. v. United States, No. 96-760C (Mar. 4, 2008) (discovery; document production; attorney client/work product privileges) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365C (Jan. 31, 2008) (discovery: work product, deliberative process, and attorney-client privileges) Nova Express, No. 07-653C (Jan. 22, 2008) (owner of sole proprietorship may bring suit in court without benefit of attorney) Thomas D. Affourtit v. United States, No. 06081C (Jan. 2, 2007) (corporation must be represented by attorney to appear before court) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, No. 04-74C (Dec. 12, 2007) (violation of protective order) Northern States Power Co. v. United States, No. 98-484C (Dec. 12, 2007) (denying motion for reconsideration of adverse $100+ million judgment) A.A.B Joint Venture v. United States, No. 04-1792C (Aug. 8, 2007) (motion for reconsideration denied) Heritage of America, LLC v. United States, No 07-150C (June 6, 2007) (motion for reconsideration) Deseret Management Corp. v United States, No. 06-86T (Mar. 29, 2007) (discovery; attorney-client and other privileges) Blue Lake Forest Products, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 01-570C et al (Mar. 29, 2007) (discovery; attorney-client privilege; waiver) Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, No. 96-760C (Mar. 28, 2007) (classified documents; deposition testimony) AAB JV v. United States, Nos. 04-1719C et al (Feb. 28, 2007) (discovery issues) AAB JV v. United States, Nos. 04-1719C et al (Feb. 28, 2007) (various discovery issues) Spartan Corp. v. United States, No. 92-580C (Apr. 18, 2007)(exclusion of testimony of government contracts expert; Christian doctrine) Guy W. Parker v. United States, No. 06-701C (Nov. 30, 2006) (circumstances permitting consolidation of actions) Armour of America v. United States, No. 04-1731C (Oct. 17, 2006) (order to protect proprietary information during discovery) United Medical Supply Co. v. United States, No. 03-289C (Sep. 8, 2006) (procedure; preservation of discovery documents) Chevron USA Inc, et al., v. United States, No. 03-288C (Sep. 7, 2006) (procedure; motion for additional discovery) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1365 (Aug. 22, 2006) (attorney-client privilege; attorney work product privilege; deliberative process privilege) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-74C, -75C (June 20, 2006) (discovery issues; motion to compel production of documents; requirements for assertion of deliberative process privilege) Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States, No. 03-2670C (July 25, 2006) (requirements for assertion of deliberative process privilege) Armour of America v. United States, No. 04-1731C (Mar. 17, 2006) (grants intervention of party into termination for default case to protect unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information) Hirel Connectors, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1170C (Mar. 15, 2006) (dismisses case already pending in another court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1500) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-74C, -75C (Mar. 14, 2006) (discovery; motion to compel; elements of deliberative process privilege) Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. United States, No. 91-1362C (Mar. 10, 2006) (whether cases involving same contract but different issues may be tried simultaneously in Court of Federal Claims and before agency board of contract appeals; Government's request to amend answer; award fees; contractor's costs of defense) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty v. United States, No. 04-1255C (Mar. 3, 2006) (procedure; motion to compel discovery and for discovery sanctions for failure to provide requested documents) Northrop Grumman Corp., Military Aircraft Div. v. United States, No. 96-760C (Mar. 1, 2006) (procedure; court refuses to consolidate court and ASBCA cases involving different claimed costs and different issues) Morse Diesel International, Inc. dba Amec Construction Management, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-279C, et al. (Feb. 1, 2006) (procedure; transfer of GSBCA cases to Court) Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1511C (Jan. 31, 2006) (procedure; standards for consolidation of cases) PR Contractors Inc. v. United States, No. 03-30C (Jan. 20, 2006) (procedure; whether documents constitute admissions of party opponent) |
|||||||||||||||||
This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me.