Stan Hinton

Contact Me
2018 Blog
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2017 Procurement Review
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Agency Sites
More Agencies

Recent Federal Circuit Contract Disputes Decisions (2000-Present)

See also Winstar Decisions

Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision



Agility Logistics Services Co. KSC v. Mattis, Nos. 57415, et al. (Apr. 16, 2018) (affirms ASBCA's prior decision that it lacked CDA jurisdiction over appeals because neither the underlying contract nor the task orders at issue were made by an executive agency of the United States and no subsequent action made the Government a party to either the contract or the task orders; the CAFC has no appellate jurisdiction over ASBCA's determination that its Charter did not provide it with jurisdiction over the appeals)

Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. 2017-1584 (Mar. 20, 2018) (appeal from two prior CoFC decisions: Meridian 1 and Meridian 2; affirms CoFC's prior holdings that: (i) only contractor's breach-of-contract and breach-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims presented viable causes of action, (ii) contractor failed to establish elements of Type I Differing Site Conditions claim because subsurface conditions of which it complained were reasonably foreseeable, and (iii) contractor's defective specification claim was essentially the same as its differing site conditions claim; reverses CoFC's prior holdings that: (i)  contractor's flood control event claim was barred by an accord and satisfaction (because CoFC did not consider all the evidence that might have precluded such a finding),  and (ii)  Government was entitled to withhold payments for unsatisfactory progress under FAR 52.232-5, barring contractor's claim for unpaid contract quantities (because (a) the cited clause only applied to progress payments, (b) there was no proof of unsatisfactory progress, and (c) there was no analysis of the parties' conflicting calculations of the appropriate amount of any set-off)

Securiforce International America, LLC, Nos. 2016-2589, 2016-2633 (Jan. 17, 2018) (affirms CoFC's prior decisions (i) upholding partial T for D and (ii) denying plaintiff's motions for sanctions, but vacates portion of CoFC's decision finding jurisdiction over claim for declaratory judgment that partial T for C had breached contract because proper remedy for breach claim would have been breach damages, not equitable relief)



Lee's Ford Dock, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, No. 2016-2308 (Aug. 2, 2017) (lease allowing contractor to operate marina on leased premises was a contract "for the disposal of personal property" under 41 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(4) and, therefore, was covered by CDA; no jurisdiction over contractor's reformation claim based upon misrepresentation because it was different from the claim presented to the Contracting Officer, which was based on mutual mistake; affirms Board's rejection of contractor's breach claim because contract clearly gave Government right to manipulate lake's water level "in any manner whatsoever")

Call Henry, Inc. v. United States, No. 2016-1732 (Apr. 28, 2017) (affirms CoFC decision dismissing breach-of-contract claim because Government has no contractual obligation to reimburse pension withdrawal liability costs incurred pursuant to Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980)

Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, No. 2016-2158 (Apr. 28, 2017) (affirms CoFC decision that contracts unambiguously precluded contractor providing closing services from charging closing fees to homebuyers and, therefore, extrinsic evidence of trade practice could not be used to vary the plain meaning)

Agility Public Warehousing Co. KSCP, FKA Public Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. Mattis, No. 2016-1265 (Apr. 4, 2017) (affirms ASBCA's decision that Government did not breach the express terms of the contract but remands case to ASBCA to consider contractor's claims for constructive change and breach of the implied duty to cooperate)

Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2016-1068 (Feb. 6, 2017) (contrary to CoFC's findings, evidence supported contractor's contentions that: (i) Government had provided inadequate or negligent estimate, and (ii) contractor had relied on the faulty estimates)



Rocky Mountain Helium LLC v. United States, No. 2016-1278 (Nov. 16, 2016) (affirms CoFC's holding that suit challenging 2004 termination of helium extraction contract is untimely under six year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 2501; reverses CoFC's holding that Settlement Agreement was not "money-mandating" under Tucker Act and, therefore, that CoFC lacked jurisdiction over claim for breach of it)

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., et al., v. United States, No. 2015-5082 (Oct. 3, 2016) (affirms CoFC's dismissal of breach of contract suit because plaintiffs do not have privity of contract with Government and, therefore, lack standing)

Guardian Moving Storage v. United States, No. 2015-5132 (Aug. 22, 2016) (nonprecedential; affirms prior CoFC decision; protest against corrective action was based on flawed assumption that protester's proposal was acceptable and that no corrective action was necessary) 

Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, No. 2015-5083 (Aug. 17, 2016) (affirms CoFC decision; no evidence Government denied request for time extension, which is a required element of constructive acceleration claim, and contractor failed to establish Government's negotiations with Pakistan to re-open one contract route amounted to fault on the part of the Government establishing a constructive change)

Western States Federal Contracting, LLC v. VA , No.  2016-1042 (July 15, 2016) (nonprecedential; reverses CBCA's dismissal of appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, even though corporate appellant lacked standing at time it initially filed its appeal to CBCA (and still lacked good standing at time appeal originally dismissed), that original dismissal was vacated by the CAFC and the company is now in good standing)

Laguna Construction Co. v. Ashton Carter, No. 2015-1291 (July 15, 2016) (affirms ASBCA decision that contractor's Chief Operating Officer's guilty plea re acceptance of kickbacks from subcontractors demonstrated a prior material breach of the "Allowable Cost and Payment" clause of the contract at issue and was a defense to the contractor's claim for costs disapproved by DCAA audit) 

Sheridan Transportation Systems, Inc. v. GSA, No. 2015-1858 (June 9, 2016) (nonprecedential; court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a CBCA decision concerning dispute arising under Transportation Act (31 U.S.C. 3726) rather than CDA)

Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 2015-5074 (May 24, 2016) (affirms CoFC's decision that contractor failed to establish any damages as a result of Government's alleged breach of delivery order (by allegedly failing to use its best efforts to secure funding for the option years) because, without notice to the Government, the contractor had assigned all its rights under the delivery order to a third party in exchange for a payment that equaled its expected profit from the full term of the order, including options)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Murphy, No. 2015-1148 (May 18, 2016) (reverses ASBCA decision; for purposes of CDA's six year limitations period for submission of claim, contractor's claim sponsoring subcontractor's termination claim did not "accrue" until it had developed sufficiently to be presented in a sum certain) 

DG21, LLC v. Mabus, No. 2015-1930 (May 6, 2016) (affirms ASBCA decision denying contractor's claim because contractor, in agreeing to pay prevailing rate for fuel, had assumed risk of rising fuel prices, and those rising prices were not a change to the contract)

Yasmin Saighi v. GSA, No. 2015-8059 (Apr. 12, 2016) (nonprecedential; affirms CBCA holding that denied request for refund by purchaser because auction item was not misdescribed and purchaser failed to comply with procedural requirements for establishing claim)

System Fuels, Inc., et al., v. United States, Nos. 2015-5094, -5095 (Apr. 4, 2016) (reverses CoFC and holds contractors are entitled to recover costs of loading spent nuclear fuel in storage casks as element of damages for Government's partial breach of spent nuclear fuel contracts)

SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2015-5151 (Mar. 29, 2016) (Government has no right to appeal ASBCA decision in Wunderlich Act case)

Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. v. United States, No. 2015-5058 (Jan. 8, 2016) (Contracting Officer's request for additional information from contractor after it had requested reconsideration of her prior decision terminating contract for default meant original decision was not final and did not become so until she subsequently informed contractor she would not reconsider her decision)


Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, No. 2015-5036 (Nov. 6, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior decision that it lacked Tucker Act jurisdiction over suit by general liability insurer claiming to be an equitable subrogee of a prime contractor, but without any responsibility for contract performance or obligation to the Government)

Bruce E. Zoeller v. McHugh, No. 2015-1516 (Sep. 17, 2015) (nonprecedential; affirms ASBCA's denial of appellant's requests for discovery sanctions and a default judgment against the Government for alleged violations of a discovery order)

McHugh v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., No. 2015-1053 (Sep. 15, 2015) (nonprecedential; affirms portion of ASBCA decision finding that government claim against contractor barred by six-year limitations period where a contractor submission contained sufficient information to start running of limitations period; reverses Board conclusion that contract prohibition against armed employees did not apply to situation where contractor hired private security firms with armed employees)

JRS Management v. Lynch, No. 2014-1834 (June 16, 2015) (in denying contractor's claims, CBCA erred in treating Government's motion to dismiss as motion for summary judgment without prior notice, resolving disputed factual issues against the contractor)

Yurok Tribe v. Dept. of Int., No. 2014-1529 (May 8, 2015) (affirms CBCA's dismissal of case because no contract had yet been formed between plaintiff and Government)

Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 2014-5094, et al. (May 7, 2015) (nonprecedential; upholds CoFC's dismissal of complaint seeking to overturn default termination because plaintiff did not allege any plausible excuses for its material breach of contract by failing to provide valid performance and payment bonds)

SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 2014-5032, -5033 (Apr. 24, 2015) (vacates CoFC's denial of claims for overhead and profit on claim preparation expenses as elements of breach of contract claims)

Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No. 2014-5133 (Apr. 13, 2015) (affirms prior CoFC decision dismissing direct claim by subcontractor for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and refusing to transfer claim sounding in tort to district court)

CCI, Inc. v. McHugh, No. 2014-1470 (Apr. 10, 2014) (affirms ASBCA's prior decision that contractor did not establish elements of Type I differing site condition claim)

G4S Technology LLC v. United States, No. 2014-5078 (Mar. 6, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior decision that subcontractor was not intended third party beneficiary of prime contract)

EM Logging v. Dept. of Agr., No- 2014-1227 (Feb. 20, 2015) (reverses CBCA decision because evidence did not establish "a pattern of activity that demonstrates flagrant disregard for the terms of this contract" as required by the contract's "Termination for Breach" clause)

K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5062 (Feb. 12, 2015) (affirms prior CoFC decisions that (i) liquidated damages provision was enforceable; (ii) contractor had failed to provide timely notice of alleged changes in accordance with the "Changes" clause; and (iii) court lacked jurisdiction over contractor's claim for time extension because it had not been first presented to the Contracting Officer for decision)

Jacqueline R. Sims, LLC, DBA JRS Management v. United States, No. 2014-5076 (Jan. 27, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior decision that, although contracts both contained flaws in language, both parties performed as if they intended to be bound; although regulations did not require Government to prepare past performance evaluations (PPEs) for contracts under micro-purchase threshold, Government had discretion to do so; negative PPEs based on contractor's failure to provide significant portions of required services did not  breach Government's obligation of good faith and fair dealing) 

DayDanyon Corp. v. Department of Defense, No. 2014-1507 (Jan. 9, 2015) (nonprecedential; affirms ASBCA's prior decision that contract unambiguously gave the Government two years within which to order the guaranteed minimum quantity)


Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, No. 2013-5096, 5099 (Dec. 10, 2014) (affirms CoFC's prior decision that contractor's allocation of costs to government versus commercial contracts using direct labor base did not violate CAS 418; CDA statute of limitations is not jurisdictional)

Veridyne Corp. v. United States, Nos. 2013-5011, 5012 (July 15, 2014) (reverses CoFC's quantum meruit award to contractor and affirms the award of penalties to the Government under the False Claims Act and Contract Disputes Act); see prior CoFC decisions: 1, 2, 3   

Sacramento Municipal Utility district v. United States, Nos. 2013-5086, 6087 (June 20, 2014) (nonprecedential spent nuclear fuel case; reverses prior CoFC decision in part; determination of damages)

SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5039, -5040 (May 29, 2014) (remands several issues of alleged lost revenues to the ASBCA for reconsideration and further findings)

Shell Oil Co., et al. v. United States, No. 2013-5051 (Apr. 28, 2014) (reverses CoFC decision; avgas contracts required Government to indemnify contractors for CERCLA clean-up costs)

Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5094 (Apr. 11, 2014) (affirms prior CoFC decision; fixed-price contract placed risk of future cost increases on contractor)

Raytheon Co. v. United States, Nos. 2013-5004, -5006 (Apr. 4, 2014) (affirms prior CoFC decision; segment closing adjustments are not pension costs subject to the timely funding requirement of FAR 31-205.6(j); Government bears burden of proof that contractor's accounting practices do not comply with CAS; no jurisdiction over Government's claim for downward equitable adjustment because there was no Contracting Officer's decision concerning that claim)

Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC and Champion Exploration, LLC v. United States, No. 2013-5073 (Mar. 14, 2014) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that imposition of requirements in revisions to governing regulations issued after lease was executed was not a breach of the lease)

Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States, No. 2013-5041 (Feb. 11, 2014) (vacates prior CoFC decision because proving breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing does not require the plaintiff to establish that the Government's action were specifically targeted to reappropriate a benefit guaranteed by the contracts)

Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5104, -5105(Feb. 6, 2014) (affirms CoFC decision that BPA is not a binding contract that gives rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5030 (Feb. 3, 2014) (affirms CoFC's determination that costs approved by contractor in subcontractor's change order proposal were not reasonable as a result of contractor's gross negligence in approving the proposed costs)

Bell/Heery, A Joint Venture v. United States, No. 2013-5002 (Jan. 7, 2014) (affirms CoFC's dismissal of suit because "Permits and Responsibilities" clause placed total responsibility on contractor to comply with requirements for obtaining state environmental permit)

Estes Express Lines v. United States, No. 2013-5056 (Jan. 3, 2014) (bill of lading sufficient to establish privity of contract between motor carrier and Government)


White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5045 (Nov. 1, 2013) (nonprecedential; Government's decision shortly before trial to convert default termination to T for C mooted plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees under EAJA)

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC v. Salazar, Nos. 2012-1055, -1174 (Sep. 13, 2013) (CBCA incorrectly limited contractor's damages after government breach of contract; contractor entitled to damages through end of contract term)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5106, -5115 (Sep. 5, 2013) (CoFC erred in not imputing contractor's employees' actions to contractor for purposes of Government's counterclaim under Anti-Kickback Act; otherwise, affirms decision of CoFC, except its calculation of base fee)

General Dynamics Corp. v. Sec'y of Defense, No. 2012-1249 (May 9, 2013) (affirms ASBCA decision contractor's use of a partial-year asset valuation in computing its retirement plan forward pricing rates was noncompliant with CAS 412)

Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC v. United States, No. 2012-5059 (Apr. 2, 2013) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision in Spent Nuclear Fuel case; unavoidable delays clause does not limit Government's damages)

Haddon Housing Associates, Limited Partnership, et al. v. United States, No. 2012-5046, -5060 (Mar. 22, 2013) (reverses Court of Federal Claims decision in part--prevention doctrine did not excuse plaintiff's failure to timely request rent adjustments under HUD HAP contracts)

Christine Baldridge v. GPO, No. 2012-6001 (Mar. 12, 2013) (nonprecedential; affirms GAO Contract Appeals Board decision denying contractor's claim because contract unambiguously called for item contrary to her interpretation and, even if it had been ambiguous, it would have been patently so, which would have required her to inquire about its meaning before bidding)

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. McHugh, No. 2012-1299 (Feb. 22, 2013) (affirms ASBCA decision that, under FAR 8.406-6, only GSA Contracting Officer has authority to decide dispute involving interpretation of FSS contract provisions and that ordering agency Contracting Officer lacks such authority, even where dispute also involves purchase order provisions)

Northrop Grumman Computing Systems v. United States, No. 2011-5124 (Feb. 19, 2013) (reverses Court of Federal Claims; contractor's letter, despite omitting  information concerning third-party financing arrangements related to Anti-Assignment Act issues, gave Contracting Officer adequate notice of amount and basis of claim and, therefore, was sufficient under CDA)


Chu v. The Boeing Co., No. 2011-1304, -1317 (Nov. 20, 2012) (nonprecedential; affirms prior CBCA decisions regarding allowability of defense costs; although Board incorrectly determined it did not have power to apportion costs of litigation with mixed results, no need to remand because apportionment would not have been appropriate in this case)

Peter C. Nwogu, dba Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5015 (Oct. 31, 2012) (nonprecedential; CDA gives  Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to enforce a monetary judgment rendered by the ASBCA)

KD1 Development, Inc. v. GSA, No. 2012-1160 (Oct. 23, 2012) (nonprecedential; reverses CBCA; ambiguity in lease agreement as to whether operating costs were included in base rental rate is latent and, therefore, must be construed against the Government)

Bowers Investment Co., LLC v. United States, No. 2011-5102 (Oct. 15, 2012) (affirms CoFC's dismissal of claims for unpaid rent as based on same transactional facts as, and therefore precluded by, prior decision by CBCA)

Tip Top Construction, Inc. v. Donahoe, No. 2011-1509 (Sep. 19, 2012) (reverses PSBCA; consultant and attorney costs were recoverable because they were reasonable contract administration costs incurred in connection with negotiating quantum of change and not for prosecution of CDA claim) 

Scott Timber Co. V. United States, No. 2011-5092 (Sep. 5, 2012) (reverses decision by Court of Federal Claims and holds (i) Government could not have breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by its pre-award conduct of failing to disclose information to contractor because the covenant does not exist until the contract is signed; and (ii) Government did not unreasonably lengthen contract suspension by unduly delaying actions that caused suspensions because suspensions were not "specifically targeted" at delaying Scott's contracts and did not reappropriate any benefit guaranteed by the contracts, since the contracts contained no guarantee that performance would not be interrupted)

Kansas City Gas and Electric Co., et al. v. United States, Nos. 2011-5044, -5045 (July 12, 2012) (breach of Standard Contract for spent nuclear fuel; calculation of damages; costs associated with researching alternative spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste storage 
options; overhead costs; reduction of damages by mitigation activities)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. United States, Nos. 2011-5033 et al. (June 13, 2012) (spent nuclear fuel case; assignment of claims; legal and lobbying fees as foreseeable damages; costs of disposing of contaminated material discovered due to the breach and the characterization of spent fuel moved to dry storage; cost of capital to fund mitigation activities; capital suspense loader overhead costs; Resource Code 19 payroll loader overhead costs)

FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5116 (May 31, 2012) (reverses Court of Federal Claims and holds contractor's claim barred by CDA's statute of limitations)

Englewood Terrace Limited Partnership v. United States, Nos. 2011-5072, -5073 (May 2, 2012) (nonprecedential; remands case to CoFC for recalculation of lost profit award following breach because lower court did not subtract costs saved by reason of breach)

Parsons Global Services, Inc. v. McHugh, No. 2011-1201 (Apr. 20, 2012) (affirms ASBCA decision that request for subcontractor overhead costs submitted by prime two years after termination for convenience was "routine" and, therefore, not a claim within the meaning of the CDA)

The Minesen Co. v. McHugh, No. 2010-1453 (Mar. 2, 2012) (enforces provision in "Disputes" clause of NAFI contract stating ASBCA's decision on any appeal would be final and unreviewable)

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, No. 2010-5123 (Feb. 21, 2012) (spent nuclear fuel; affirms damages award by Court of Federal Claims in prior decision favor of plaintiff)

The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2010-5031 (Jan. 26, 2012) (affirms CoFC's decision re appropriate segment closing adjustments under CAS 413 when sale of segment involves transfer of defined benefit pension plan)



South Fuels, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5116, -5117 (Jan. 19, 2012) (spent nuclear fuel; affirms CoFC's (i) denial of claim for cost of borrowed funds and (ii) causation analysis and revised award of nominal damages; and reverses CoFC's denial of overhead costs) 

Engage Learning, Inc., v. Salazar, No. 2011-1007 (Oct. 5, 2011) (reverses CBCA's summary dismissal of an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, after the contractor initially pled that its appeal involved a contract covered by the CDA, the CBCA made summary conclusions about the credibility of evidence as to the existence of a contract) 

Boston Edison Co., et al. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5136, -5137 (Sep. 28, 2011) (spent nuclear fuel case; interest on loans for mitigation efforts is not recoverable; overhead costs on such efforts are recoverable; costs avoided by reason of breach must be accounted for)

Systems Development Corp. v. McHugh, No. 2011-1092 (Sep. 26, 2011) (affirms ASBCA's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the contractor failed to appeal termination settlement cost claim to Board within 90 days of receiving Contracting Officer's decision and failed to submit equitable adjustment claims within CDA's six-year statute of limitations)

Cardiosom, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 2010-5109 (Aug. 31, 2011) (reverses CoFC and holds court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over contractor's breach of contract claim following termination in accordance with the 2008 amendment to the Medicare Improvements for  Patients and Providers Act)

Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, No. 2010-5166 (Aug 29, 2011) (affirms CoFC decision that court had CDA jurisdiction to consider contractor's claim that Government gave it unfair performance evaluation but that complaint failed to state claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because, even assuming its allegations were true, there was still basis for concluding Government's evaluation was not arbitrary or capricious)

Southern California Edison Co. v. United States, No. 2010-5147 (Aug. 23,2011) (spent nuclear fuel; affirms CoFC conclusion that indirect costs can be recovered as part of damages for breach)

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States, No. 2010-5086, -5087 (Aug. 3, 2011) (rights of Miller Act sureties against United States)

Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, Nos. 2010-5110, -5111 (June 24, 2011) (spent nuclear fuel case; calculation of damages; "exchange model," overhead and G&A, investment in PFS)

Dominion Resources, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 2009-5031, -5032 (Apr. 25, 2011) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that that the Assignment of Claims Act does not prohibit the assignment of existing contract claims in spent nuclear fuel case because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10222, allows such assignments)

Stockton East Water District, et al. v. United States, No. 2007-5142 (Mar. 18, 2011) (on petition for rehearing, affirms earlier decision remanding case to Court of Federal Claims for limited purpose of determining amount of Government's liability for contract breaches)

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., et al., v. United States, No. 2008-5020 (Mar. 11, 2011) (spent nuclear fuels case; remands damages calculation portion of case to Court of Federal Claims to consider additional discovery or evidence in light of Federal Circuit decision made after original Court of Federal Claims decision)

Mabus v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., No. (Feb. 4, 2011) (reverses ASBCA decision because Board applied wrong test of equitable estoppel; fact that contractor accepted some emailed delivery orders, when contract required them to be mailed, estops contractor from refusing to perform subsequent, similarly deficient delivery orders)

Frank P. Slattery, Jr., et al. v. United States, No. 2007-5063, -5064, -5089 (Jan. 28, 2011) (Tucker Act jurisdiction exists over claims for breach of contract by the FDIC)



Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, LTD. v. HHS, No. 2010-1013 (Dec. 15, 2010) (affirms CBCA decision; contractor not entitled to reimbursement for costs that exceed statutory cap when contract contains explicit "subject to availability of appropriated funds" and "not to exceed" language; Government did not breach contract by failing to request additional appropriations because there was no contractual requirement that it do so)

Norma C. Sullivan and Donald E. Sullivan, v. United States, No. 2010-5091 (Nov. 29, 2010) (nonprecedential; reverses Court of Federal Claims; plaintiffs injured by car driven by Postal Service contractor cannot sue Postal Service for breach of contract as third party beneficiaries for Postal Service's failure to enforce contract provision requiring contractor to obtain additional insurance)

McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1536 (Sep. 23, 2010) (reverses prior ASBCA decision; following termination of contractor, Government did not replace contracted-for software in violation of Non-Substitution clause in delivery order)

M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5024 (June 17, 2010) (CDA; definition of a claim; necessity to comply with CDA requirements when asserting claim as a defense to government claim)

Donley v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 2009-1261(June 10, 2010) (affirms ASBCA decision; definition of an "affected CAS-covered contract" within the meaning of FAR 30.602(3)(1993))

Guy W. Parker dba Parker International v. United States, No. 2010-1153 (June 9, 2010--nonprecedential) (affirms dismissal for failure to submit claim to Contracting Officer for decision and for untimely appeal of another claim)

ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5036 (Mar. 19, 2010) (IR & D costs; "required in the performance of a contract")

Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 2008-5092, -5093 (Feb. 19, 2010) (reverses Court of Federal Claims and holds Government did not breach either express warranty (because none existed) or duty of good faith and fair dealing in suspending timber harvesting contracts during consultations required by court order in separate litigation)

Francisco Javier Rivera Agredano and Alfonso Calderon Leon v. United States, No. 2008-5114, -5115 (Feb. 17, 2010) (purchase of vehicle at federal "As Is Where Is" auction did not create an implied-in-fact agreement (warranty) by Government that the vehicle did not contain hidden contraband)

Nebraska Public Power District v. United States, No. 2007-5083 (Jan. 12, 2010) (Standard Contract; district court jurisdiction on issue of statutory interpretation)


Oregon Woods, Inc. v. United States, No.  2009-1271 (Dec. 10, 2009) (nonprecedential; affirms CBCA decision upholding default termination on summary judgment because there was a rational basis for the termination and it was not made in bad faith or as a result of an abuse of discretion)

States Roofing Corp. v. Secretary of the Navy, No. 2009-1067 (Dec. 7, 2009) (contract interpretation; reverses ASBCA decision in part because contractor's interpretation was within zone of reasonableness)

Teknowledge Corp. v. United States, No. 2009-5053 (November 3, 2009) (nonprecedential: affirms rejection of contractor's claim because software amortization costs not allocable to contract)

Arctic Slope Native Association LTD v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 2008-1532 (Sep. 29, 2009) (CDA's six year statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling)

Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., No. 2008-1543 (Sep. 14, 2009) (reverses ASBCA decision that contractor's potential violation of CAS 413 had not caused the Government to pay increased costs and, therefore, that the contractor was not required to pay interest)

Vantage Assocs. v. Sec'y of Defense, No. 2009-1214 (Aug. 7, 2009) (nonprecedential; affirms ASBCA holding denying breach claim based on alleged premature termination of purchase order for default)

LAI Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, No. 2008-1317 (July 24, 2009) (contract interpretation; reverses ASBCA and holds contractor should have been reimbursed for shipment of items at issue under CLIN 002 instead of CLIN 001; determines appropriate method of charging under CLIN 002, an issue not reached by the Board)

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. 2008-5108 (July 21, 2009) (partial breach by United States of of contract with utilities to store spent nuclear waste; improper calculation of damages)

Total Procurement Service, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, No. 2008-1450 (July 17, 2009) (nonprecedential; factual issues only; affirmed because all factual findings supported by substantial evidence)

American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 2008-5188 (June 29, 2009) (surety bond; interpretation of 13 C.F.R. 115.19(e); effective date of amendment to security bond agreement)

Secretary of the Navy v. FloorPro, Inc., No. 2008-1407 (June 26, 2009) (subcontractor claiming to be third party beneficiary of bilateral modification between Government and prime did not have CDA jurisdiction to file claim directly against Government)

Bell BCI Co. v. United States, No. 2008-5087 (June 25, 2009) (reverses parts of Court of Federal  Claims decision because it finds language "attributable to this modification" unambiguous as a bar to certain claims)

Tyler Construction Group v. United States, No 2008-5177 (June 25, 2009) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that use of ID/IQ contract on project was appropriate)

McDonnell Douglas Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, No. 2007-5111, 5131 (June 2, 2009) (upholds default termination)

Tecom, Inc. v. Secy. of the Army, No. 2008-1171 (May 19, 2009) (defense and settlement costs of private suit for sexual harassment are not recoverable by government contractor unless it can establish the original plaintiff had very little chance of success on the merits)

In Re United States, No. 08-M885 (Mar. 5, 2009) (discovery; deliberative process privilege; unauthorized ex parte contacts)

Daewoo Engineering and Constr. Co., LTD v. United States, No. 2007-5129 (Feb. 20, 2009) (affirms CoFC decision; baseless claim submitted only as a negotiating ploy is fraudulent)

North Hartland, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 2008-5009 (Feb. 2, 2009) (nonprecedential; affirms CoFC holding that plaintiff was not authorized to sue the Government for breach of contract)

Arko Executive Services, Inc., No. 2008-5011 (Jan. 21, 2009) (affirms lower court ruling on services contract; interpretation of the meaning and interaction of the "Option to Extend the Term of the Contract" clause (FAR 52.217-9); the "Option to Extend Services" clause (FAR 52.217-8); and the "Continuity of Services" clause (FAR 52.237-3) )


Conner Brothers Construction Co. v. Geren, No. 2008-1188 (Dec. 31, 2008) (sovereign acts doctrine precludes recovery)

Rothe Development Corp. v. Dept. of Defense, No. 2008-1017 (Nov. 4, 2008)(affirmative action goals and preferences of 10 U.S.C. 2323 are unconstitutional)

Delmarva Power & Light Co. and Atlantic City Electric Co. v. United States, No. 2008-5010 (Sep. 18, 2008) (Government's power to waive prohibition on assignment of claims in Anti-Assignment Act)

Nova Express v. Postmaster General , No  2008-1153(Aug. 14, 2008) (default termination; required insurance policy)

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5003 (August 5, 2008) (failure to incorporate disputed document into lease agreement; integration clause)

Parker v. United States, No. 2007-5163 (June 4, 2008  nonprecendential) (jurisdiction)

General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates, No. 2007-1119r (June 3, 2008) (petition for rehearing denied; FAR 52.212-4(f) interpreted to mean that unexcused delay of subcontractor is not excusable delay by the prime)

Nova Express v. Postmaster General, No. 2008-1033 (May 8, 2008) (upholding board decision sustaining default termination; nonprecedential)

Phillips/May Corp. v. United States, No. 2007-5139 (Apr. 23, 2008) (res judicata; claim preclusion; splitting claims between board and Court of Federal Claims)

International Technology Corp. v. Secretary of the Navy, No. 2007-1276 (Apr. 18, 2008) (differing site conditions; absence of reliance)

Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 2007-5137 (Apr. 2 2008) (lack of jurisdiction; no contract for procurement of goods or services; claims sounding in tort; implied contract)

General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, No. 2007-1119 (Mar. 2008) (default termination; FAR 52.212-4(f); contractor responsible for fault attributable to its subcontractors)



Secretary of the Navy v. Bath Iron Works Corp., No. 2006-1578, -1579  (Oct. 4,2007) (Insurance clause, defect in vessel)

Tesoro Hawaii Corp and Tesoro Alaska Co. v. United States, No. 2007-5022 (Sept. 28, 2007) (Minority preferences programs) 

ConocoPhillips et al v. United States, No. 2007-5004 (Sept. 21, 2007) (Economic Price Adjustment clause)

Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 2006-5093 (Sept. 19, 2007) (construction contract; defective specs; differing site conditions)

National American Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 2007-5016 (Aug. 23, 2007) (Miller Act surety bond, subrogation issues) 

Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti, Joint Venture, No. 2006-1359 (Aug. 17, 2007) (express and implied authority; ratification)

J.G.B. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 2005-5065 (August 2, 2007) (cross-contract setoff of debts)

Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5115 (June 26, 2002) (differing site conditions, defective specifications, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, cooperation, and noninterference)

International Data Products Corp. v. United States, No. 2006-5083 (June 27, 2007) (convenience termination issues)

Bill Hubbard v. United States, No. 03-5076  (Mar. 20, 2007) (lost profits; EAJA; attorneys fees)

Ryste & Ricas v. Harvey, No. 06-1196 (Feb. 16, 2007) (untimely termination settlement proposal)

North Star Steel Co. v. United States, No. 06-5054 (Feb. 13, 2007) (damages for government breach of contract) 

Bianchi v. United States, No. 06-5042 (Jan. 29, 2007) (CoFC Jurisdiction; timeliness of VECP claim)

Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., et al. v. United States, No. 04-5155 (Jan. 22, 2007) (interest recovery on unconstitutional export tax)

Curtis v. United States, No. 06-5107 (Jan. 10, 2007) (jurisdiction over tort and breach claims--nonprecedential)

Schleicher Com. Corrections Ctr. v. Dept. of Justice, No. 06-1215 (Jan. 8, 2007) (tardy DOL wage determination--nonprecedential)



Richlin Security Service Co. v. Secretary of Homeland Security, No. 2006-1055 (Dec. 26, 2006) (Equal Access to Justice Act--recovery of paralegal expenses at local market rates)

Night Vision Corp. v. United States, No. 06-5048 (Nov. 22, 2006) (no obligation by Government to enter into a Phase III SBIR program contract with a small business after it successfully completed Phases I and II)

American Capital Corp. and Transcapital Financial Corp. v. FDIC v. United States, Nos. 05-5150, 5152, 5159 (Oct. 30, 2006) (Winstar)

TEG-Paradigm Environmental, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-5007 (Sep. 29, 2006) (offeror's "work plan" submitted in compliance with solicitation's requirements did not become part of contract, did not bind the Government, and did not override specification requirements)

Kimco Realty Corp. and Centereach Mall Assocs. v. United States, No. 05-5181 (June 30, 2006) (nonprecedential; lease interpretation; responsibility for common area maintenance costs)

Medlin Construction Group, LTD v. Harvey, No. 05-1514 (June 1, 2006) (contract interpretation; specification versus drawings; "Order of Precedence" clause; reverses ASBCA summary judgment for government; directs summary judgment for contractor)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. United States, No. 05-5017 (Feb. 8, 2006) (nonprecedential; damages; interest)

Jireh Consulting Inc. (dba The Writing Co.) v. United States, No. 05-5040 (Feb. 7, 2006) (nonprecedential; affirms dismissal of Court of Federal Claims case in part because a corporation may not appear pro se)

Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, Nos. 04-5151, -5154 (Feb. 6, 2006) (S corporation's reimbursement of sole shareholder's state income taxes based on dividends she received from corporation was not an allowable cost under government contract)

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-5052 (Jan. 19, 2006) (convenience termination costs; contract interpretation; ambiguity construed against the drafter of the contract)


Long Lane Limited Partnership v. Bibb, No. 05-1036 (Dec. 7, 2005) (nonprecedential; affirms GSBCA's dismissal of appeal from lease termination because contractor did not offer evidence lease was terminated in bad faith)

AST Anlagen – und Sanierungstechnick GmbH v. Secretary of the Army, No. 05-1053 (Dec. 6, 2005) (nonprecedential; affirms ASBCA's denial of contractor's claim for delay damages)

Robert Curtis v. United States, No. 05-5121 (Nov. 14, 2005) (nonprecedential; affirms Claims Court dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failed attempt to substitute individual plaintiff for corporation holding contracts and for failure of corporation to be represented by counsel)

Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 05-5018 (Sep. 27, 2005) (affirms CoFC decision because plaintiff did not present evidence that it was an intended third party beneficiary under a government contract or that it had a contract with the Government; therefore, it lacked standing)

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Secretary of the Navy, No. 04-1461 (Sep. 21, 2005) (affirms ASBCA decision that contractor is not entitled to recover for subcontractor effort in termination settlement)


Campbell Plastics Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brownlee, No. 03-1512 (Nov. 10, 2004) (affirms ASBCA decision sustaining right of government to invention after contractor failed to comply with invention disclosure provisions of contract)

England v. The Sherman R. Smoot Corp., No. 03-1461 (Nov. 3, 2004) (vacates ASBCA decision that there was a rebuttable presumption that the Government caused a 51-day delay arising simply from the fact that the Contracting Officer had extended the contract completion date by that amount)

Bruce e. Zoeller v. Brownlee, No. 04-1332 (Oct. 25, 2004) (affirms ASBCA decision that Army's partial termination of lease was proper; authority issues)

England v. Contel Advanced Systems, Inc., No. 04-1006 (Oct. 6, 2004) (reverses ASBCA; holds claim is essentially a claim for interest as a direct cost to the contractor resulting from the Government's alleged breach of contract, which is barred by the "no interest" rule)

Gardiner Kamya & Assocs., P.C. v. Jackson, No. 03-1235 (May 27, 2004) (reverses HUDBCA decision that modification was not premised on agreement to retroactively re-price past work)

Turner Construction Co. v. United States, No. 03-5055 (May 12, 2004) (reverses Court of Federal claims; contract interpretation--contractor's reading of drawings and specifications together was reasonable)

England v. the Swanson Group, Inc., No. 03-1051 (Jan. 9, 2004) (reverses ASBCA decision because contractor failed to submit a CDA "claim" for a decision by the Contracting Officer)


Thompson v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, No. 02-1286 (July 3, 2003) (affirms Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals decision that Government's failure to pay contract support indirect costs breached contract)

Rumsfeld v. Applied Companies, Inc., 01-1630 (Apr. 2, 2003) (corrects some misstatements in prior decision but otherwise affirms opinion affirming ASBCA decision that DLA breached requirements contract by including negligently-prepared estimates in solicitation)  

Kearfott Guidance & Navigation Corp. v. Rumsfeld, No. 02-1039 (Feb. 25, 2003) (affirms ASBCA decision that contractor could not base its claim for payment on the stepped up valuation of assets under FAR 31.205-52 (1990))

Allegheny Teledyne, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 02-5008, -5009, -5010, -5011 (Jan. 23, 2003) (affirms Court of Federal Claims' decision on pension surpluses or deficits issues with regard to segment closings under CAS 413;  pre-CAS contracts not subject to adjustment)

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Rumsfeld, No. 02-1058 (Jan. 16, 2003) (affirms ASBCA decision that claimed pension costs were not allocable to government contracts under CAS 412 and 413)

Rumsfeld v. United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney, No. 02-1071 (Jan. 15, 2003) (vacates ASBCA decision; under CAS 410, 418 and 420, in allocating G&A, B&P, and IR&D, contractor was required to include a "cost"  for "collaboration parts" in its allocation bases)


Metric Constructors v. United States, No. 02-5086 (Dec. 18, 2002) (contract interpretation; reverses Court of Federal Claims; poorly drafted document did not release prime and Government from subcontractor claims involved in this case)

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. England, No. 00-1420 (Nov. 27, 2002) (affirms ASBCA dismissal of portion of takeover surety's claim for refund of the portion of delay damages covering the time period before it took over the work)

Seaboard Lumber Co. and Capital Development Co. v. United States, No. 01-5097 (Oct. 18, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims allowing government claims against contractors on timber sales contracts)

Johnson Management Group CFC, Inc. v. Martinez, No. 01-1145 (Oct. 17, 2002) (affirms HUDBCA's decision upholding propriety of default termination and deciding claims for damages; Government not bound by clause inserted by Contracting Officer in contract that directly contradicted clear FAR requirements)

AT&T Co. and Lucent Technologies v. United States, No. 01-5044 (Oct. 8, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that Navy's violation of section 8118 of Pub. L. 100-102, which prohibits fixed price contracts for development of major weapons systems absent specific findings by Secretary of Defense, did not void contract or create actionable wrong against (or enforceable interest by) contractor)

Florida Power & Light Co. et al. v. United States, Nos. 02-5012, -5023 (Oct. 4, 2002) (appropriateness of various government charges under uranium enrichment service contracts)

Raytheon Co. v. White, No. 01-1350 (Sep. 24, 2002) (partially affirms and partially vacates ASBCA decision on claims for increased costs under terminated contract)

Robinson and Florida Businessmen's Association, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-5028 (Sep. 24, 2002) (reverses Court of Federal Claims decision on amount of damages for breach of sales agreement because Government did not take appropriate steps to mitigate damages on resale, and, if it had, there would have been none)

International Air Response v. United States, No. 01-5117 (Sep. 4, 2002) (reverses Court of Federal Claims determination that complaint was untimely filed under CDA; Government collaterally estopped from challenging (in CoFC) order by federal district court staying the running of the CDA appeal period?! because the Government chose not to appeal that stay order)

Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, No. 01-5018 (Aug. 14, 2002) (vacates Court of Federal Claims decision; award of lost profits for contract breach was appropriate, but damages should have been calculated using a risk-adjusted discount rate)

Boeing North American, Inc. v. Roche, No. 01-1011 (July 29, 2002) (vacates ASBCA decision disallowing of legal costs contractor incurred in defending shareholder derivative suit, because the ASBCA applied the wrong legal standard and did not consider the contractor's likelihood of prevailing on the merits of that suit; on remand, ASBCA may allow costs only if it finds plaintiff's had very little likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the suit)

White v. Edsall Construction Co., No. 01-1628 (July 2, 2002) (implied warranty of design specifications; affirms ASBCA decision that general disclaimer in design drawing did not shift risk of design defects to contractor)

United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Roche, No. 01-1242 (June 27, 2002) (dismisses appeal from ASBCA,  without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction because the Board's decision was not yet "final")

Hercules Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5103 (June 5, 2002) (proper handling of tax refunds to contractor; CAS 406 and 410 are not inconsistent with the FAR "Allowable Cost and Payment," "Taxes," and "Credits" clauses--leave granted for stay pending appeal to Supreme Court)

Varilease Technology Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5114 (May 7, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that Government did not breach ordering requirements in option period in ID/IQ contract because exercising option did not convert contract to to a requirements contract)

Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman, No. 01-1233 (Apr. 18, 2002) (affirms AGBCA decision dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no underlying contract had been formed; "Tender Agreement" were illusory promises that did not bind the Government to order services from appellant)

Aerojet Solid Propulsion Co. v. White, No. 01-1140 (May 29, 2002) (defective pricing; affirms ASBCA decision that TINA required contractor to reveal its receipt of additional sealed bids to the Government during price negotiations because it was knowledge one would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly)

The Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5061 (Mar. 1, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that contract unambiguously required the contractor to pay state and local sales and use taxes; Government not required to notify other bidders of one bidder's mistaken interpretation of solicitation)

Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5077 (Feb. 26, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims summary judgment in favor of Government that release barred contract claim)

The Xerxe Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5055 (Feb. 4, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that failure to mark each page of unsolicited proposal with restricted rights legend required by FAR is fatal to claim for Government's misuse of proprietary information)

Franklin Pavkov Construction Co. v. United States, No. 01-1010 (Jan 28, 2002) (affirms ASBCA decision on defective specification and defective government-furnished material claims under construction contract)

P.R. Burke Corp. v. United States, No. 01-5001 (Jan. 24, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims holding denying contractor entitlement to delay damages on contract to repair and improve sewage treatment plant; delays caused by contractor's failure to submit a required, conforming plan)

Oman-Fishbach International (JV) v. Pirie, No. 01-1075 (Jan 18, 2002) (affirms ASBCA decision that contract did not shift to Government the responsibility for excess costs caused by actions of Portuguese Armed Forces that limited access to site)


Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 00-5109, -5119 (Nov. 13, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims' calculation and award of damages for Government's breach of contract)

Charles G. Williams Construction, Inc. v. White, No. 01-1074 (Nov. 8, 2001) (vacates ASBCA's rejection of Eichleay claim for delay damages in order for board to more fully explain the rationale for its ruling)

Qualmed Plans for Health of New Mexico, Inc. v. United States, No. 00-5108 (Sep. 24, 2001) (reverses decision of Court of Federal Claims: contractor owes simple interest on amounts of government overpayments under contract incorporating FAR and  Federal Employees Health Benefit Acquisitions Regulations (FEHBAR) re defective pricing)

Robins Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5010 (Sep. 20, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that contractor's knowledge of specification defects at the time it submitted bid for contract precluded recovery for defective specifications; failure to raise other claims in Complaint or in status report to Court of Federal Claims constitutes abandonment of those claims)

Marine Logistics v. England, No. 00-1528 (Sep. 12, 2001) (transfers appeal from ASBCA to District Court because it is wholly maritime case)

American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. United States, No. 00-5090 (July 23, 2001) (lack of standing to challenge cost comparison under OMB Circular A-76 because challengers are not actual or potential bidders)

Furash & Co. v. United States, No. 00-5084 (June 13, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that it lacked jurisdiction over claim under contract by non-appropriated funds activity)

General Electric Co. v. Delaney, No. 00-1401 (June 1, 2001) (reverses ASBCA decision; correct method of calculating foreign-currency depreciation costs of an affiliate)

UMC Electronics Co. v. United States, No. 00-5046 (May 14, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims finding of fraudulent claim where contractor referred in claim to "actual costs," but used only purchase orders to compute the claim, when most invoices for delivered items were available)

Program and Construction Management Group, Inc. v. Davis, No. 00-1312 (Apr. 19, 2001) (affirms GSBCA on contract interpretation issue; contractor not entitled to compensation for delays)

Insurance Co. of the West v. United States, No. 00-5039 (Mar. 23, 2001) (subrogee, after stepping into shoes of government contractor, is not barred by sovereign immunity from suing Government under Tucker Act)



Marathon Oil co. et al. v. United States, No. 97-5146 (Dec. 28, 2000) (government breach of oil and gas exploration contracts)

Jowett, Inc. v. United States, No. 00-5021 (Dec. 13, 2000) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that construction contract requirement to insulate air supply ducts was unambiguous)

Giesler and Coniglio, dba Central Park Co. v. United States, Nos. 00-5031, -5032 (Nov. 13, 2000) (reverses Court of Federal Claims and holds that contractor's failure to read specification incorporated by reference in solicitation did not entitle it to relief for failing to provide specified items, and contractor's submission of document after pre-award survey indicating the items it intended to supply did not conform to that spec did not entitle it to relief from the spec)

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., et al., No. 99-1528 (Sep. 28, 2000) (reverses GSBCA and holds Government breached multiple award schedule contracts for transcription services whenever agencies ordered services from a non-schedule contractor without having obtained the appropriate waiver; damages for lost profits)

Danzig v. AEC Corp., No.  99-1343 (Sep. 25, 2000) (reverses ASBCA decision that default termination was improper; failure of contractor to respond adequately to Government's request for adequate assurances of timely performance)

Kinetic Builders, Inc. v. Peters, No. 00-1065 (Sep. 25, 2000) (affirms ASBCA's denial of claims for extended jobsite overhead costs)

Rex Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-1527 (Sep. 14, 2000) (affirms ASBCA decision denying contractor claim for interest on termination-for-convenience settlement amount because parties had not reached impasse in settlement negotiations and, therefore, letter to TCO was not a CDA claim requesting a final decision)

Freightliner Corp. v. Caldera, No. 99-1217 (Sep. 6, 2000) (affirms ASBCA that option exercise by Government did not violate option clause and, therefore, did not entitle contractor to equitable adjustment)

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. et al. v. United States, Nos. 99-5138, -5139, -5140 (Aug. 31, 2000) (government breach of Standard Contract for disposal of nuclear waste)

Northern States Power Co. v. United States, No. 99-5096 (Aug. 31, 2000) (government breach of Standard Contract for disposal of nuclear waste)

Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. Danzig, No. 99-1480 (Aug. 18, 2000) (reverses portions of ASBCA decision concerning concurrent delay because it did not use proper analysis to apportion delay between Government and contractor)

Sauer, Inc. v. Danzig, No. 99-1206 (July 20, 2000) (appeal from ASBCA; construction contract; labor and equipment inefficiencies; claim for remission of liquidated damages)

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Danzig, No. 99-1124 (May 8, 2000) (appeal from ASBCA; proper charges for transportation services under McCumber Amendment)

Herman B. Taylor Construction Co. v. Barram, No. 99-1028 (Feb. 15, 2000) (reverses GSBCA decision sustaining default termination; DOL "consent order" was not a finding of labor noncompliance that would justify default)


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