GBA Associates Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 20-116 C (Apr. 16, 2024) (firm providing security services to Afghanistan government under Afghan contract that utilized funds provided by United States to Afghanistan and that was approved by the United States did not allege facts sufficient to prove that it had implied-in-fact contract with United States to compensate it for shortfall in funds owing by Afghanistan; specifically it did not allege facts sufficient to establish that United States had intent to contract with it as a guarantor)

BES Design/Build LLC v. United States, No. 19-1893 (Jan. 26, 2024) (contract interpretation; where contract was ambiguous on the question whether contractor was to be paid on a per person/per day basis, court looks to extrinsic evidence, specifically parties' conduct before the dispute arose, and finds parties clearly acted as if they agreed that was the basis of payment; denies claim for unabsorbed overhead because contractor did not prove it was ever on standby, much less that it was for an indefinite duration)

Lennar Corp. and HPS Development Co., LP v. United States, No. 23-416 (Nov. 8, 2023) (denies Government's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims that the  Government improperly denied their request for indemnification under Section 330 of the NDAA for FY 1993, amended by Pub. L. No. 103-160, Div. A, Title X, § 1002, l07 Stat. 1745 (Nov. 30, 1993))

Platinum Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-1714 C (Oct. 16, 2023) (no meeting of minds concerning price because plaintiff had withdrawn tenders before they were memorialized in government bills of lading, so no contract formed and plaintiff is limited to quantum meruit recovery)

Platinum Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-1539 (Aug. 17, 2023) (denies cross motions for summary judgment because neither party entitled to utilize rates different from those specified in contract)

The Government of Greece Hellenic Air Force v. United States, No. 19-1615 (July 18, 2023) (where claim accrued when Government repeatedly gave contractor notice that LOA on which it was based had closed, there was no basis for accrual suspension, and court lacked jurisdiction over suit filed more than six years later)

Slone Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 18-669 C (July 14, 2023) (submerged piles of timber and buried riprap did not constitute Type 1 differing site condition (because fact that they were not mentioned in contract documents was not an affirmative representation that they were not there) or Type 2 differing site condition (because plaintiff did not prove items differed materially from conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inhering in work of the character provided in the contract, in this case work involving underwater construction tasks, such as pile driving) and, in any event, plaintiff did not establish that damages to its structures were caused by the submerged items; no jurisdiction over superior knowledge claim not previously presented to Contracting Officer for decision; Government's change to sequence of work not shown to have caused contractor to incur extra costs beyond those it would have incurred without the change; Government's actions in failing to compensate contractor "if" government actions caused extra costs did not breach implied duty of good faith and fair dealing because those actions did not cause the contractor's extra costs; various quantum issues decided by the court)

American Ground Transportation, Inc. and Liberty Launch, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-123 C (May 26, 2023) (contract interpretation; concession contract to operate shuttle buses on military base had consideration (space, advertising at cost, and coordination with the Government) and did not grant concession contractor exclusivity and thus was not breached by Government in allowing other shuttle bus operator on base; continued performance after the contract expired did not establish an implied-in-fact option extension of the contract because it  was not on the same terms as the expired contract and the plaintiff did not have any obligation to the Government after the contract expired, making any further purported contract illusory; refuses to dismiss allegations re violation of Government's duty of good faith and fair dealing because concession contractors are induced to pay commission for contract on promise that agency would coordinate with them so that they could obtain reasonable benefits of contracting; dismisses claims over which court lacks jurisdiction, e.g.,  claims for interference with prospective economic relations and negligence are tort claims)

Baldi Bros., Inc. v. United States, No. 16-536 (May 12, 2023) (Government's responses to contractor's request for information regarding contaminated soil and its earthwork submittals did not suggest or require that the contractor suspend the work and thus did not cause a delay in the work; plain language of contract required contractor to dispose of excess soil at an offsite disposal facility and to pay for any additional testing required by that facility )

State of Ohio v. United States, No. 20-288 C (Oct. 7, 2022) (for purpose of six-year limitations period, accrual suspension rule does not apply to claims of which contractor would have been aware had it exercised a contractual right; no jurisdiction over claim for declaratory relief; contract interpretation: Government breached contract by billing contractor for costs not within proper definition of joint use operation and maintenance costs as established by previous decision in case; Government breached implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to maintain usable records of its charges and by employing arbitrary billing practices)

Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. 16-1001 C (Aug. 19, 2022) (although contract provision originally relied on by Government to partially terminate timber sales contract was inapposite because it only applied when a court order required the termination, other provisions permitted partial termination if continuation of the contract would cause certain environmental injuries or other adverse effects, so contractor is not entitled to further recovery under the applicable clause because it has not proved “the rates paid for comparable timber on the same national forest” during the six-month period that preceded the partial termination were higher than the then-current contract rates)

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. 12-286 C (July 13, 2022) (Government owes contract contract balance for conforming supplies because delays in delivery of those supplies are attributable to the Government; decisions on a slew of other claims and counterclaims result in little recovery by both sides)

Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 19-883 C (2022) (June 30, 2022) (contract interpretation; contractor's vendor lists consisting of generic descriptors of parts contractor  purchased, coupled with numerical identifiers, along with the identity, address, and DUNS number of the supplier or manufacturer that sold the parts, but not including descriptions of the physical, functional, or performance requirements, or the design, manufacture, or assembly, of the parts are not "technical data" under DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(15) and that the Contracting Officer's decision directing the contractor to remove certain proprietary markings from the vendor lists  based on the assumption that they comprised technical data was improper)

T.H.R. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-558 C (June 8, 2022) (general release in bilateral settlement agreement of "any and all claims, demands, liabilities, actions, causes of action, damages, expenses, and obligations whatsoever" was broad enough to cover all claims arising prior to the execution of the agreement, not just two claims obliquely referred to in it with the language "including but not limited to")

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 15-885 C, 16-925 C (Mar. 17, 2022) (denies differing site conditions claims because the contract documents did not misrepresent subsurface soil conditions and disclosed that there might be subsurface obstructions, and readily available information alerted contractors that certain subsurface conditions might be present, and contract required contractors to conduct investigations to precisely characterize those conditions; plaintiff's alternate defective specifications claim is just recasting of its unsuccessful differing site conditions claims; Government constructively changed contract by requiring plaintiff to re-analyze and justify design that Government already had approved, which delayed critical path work and involved acceleration because the Government required the work to be completed on the original schedule)

Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1301 (Feb. 28, 2022) (substandard briefing by plaintiff; plaintiff failed to prove existence of differing site condition because (i) contract did not represent soil conditions in way plaintiff claimed and (ii) plaintiff failed to prove it relied on its interpretation in bidding; plaintiff has not proven entitlement to more compensation than was already provided in a mod for another differing site condition; plaintiff cannot rely on modified total cost theory of damages because it did not prove its bid was reasonable or that it was not, itself, responsible for the added costs)

Anchorage, A Municipal Corp. v. United States, No. 14-166 C (Dec. 9, 2021) (strikes Government's arguments raised for first time in post-hearing briefs, in contravention of court's orders, after seven-year-long litigation; clear language of MOU concerning Port of Anchorage expansion project required Government "to provide a complete item of construction or to provide design construction and project management services, free of defects"; subsequent Memorandum of Agreement "confirm[ed] [the Government's] obligation to oversee, design, and construct the Project"; Government breached MOU by contracting with a party that failed to produce a project free of defects; Government failed to enforce its available remedies against its contractor for project defects; Government breached Memorandum of Agreement by settling its contractor's claims without notice to plaintiff)

Sunrez Corp. v. United States, No. 21-568 (Jan. 20, 2022) (contract interpretation; dismisses claim that Government breached SBIR contract by failing to submit contract items (pallets) for certification because, neither the contract (when read as a whole) nor the governing SBIR statute required the Government to do so; plaintiff failed to show any contract provision that obligated the Government to perform any of three other express "duties" the plaintiff claimed the Government had failed to perform; however, denies Government's motion to dismiss claim that failure to submit pallets for certification violated implied duty of good faith and fair dealing because of a "plethora" of disputed material facts)

E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-244 C (Jan. 10, 2022) (contractor did not provide convincing evidence that it completed the work on disputed CLINs so Government's failure to pay for those items was not a breach;  contractor not entitled to compensation for information incorporated in a solicitation amendment which it had a responsibility to read and which it subsequently represented that it had read)

Lodge Constr., Inc. v. United States, Nos. 13-499, 13-800 (Jan. 10, 2022) (contractor's claim fraudulently based on operating and standby rates for dump truck listed in USACE Manual when the dump trucks it actually used were worth far less than the truck in the manual; inefficiency rate used by contractor in calculating its claim was fraudulent because it was not reasonably accurate and because it captured days that were not part of contractor's dewatering claim; contractor's failure to utilize  information in a contract modification while calculating its inefficiency ratio was not fraudulent because its interpretation of the mod was within the zone of reasonableness)

Baldi Bros, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-536 (Oct. 25, 2021) (contract interpretation; contract unambiguously required construction contractor to disposal of soil to an approved disposal facility and clearly stated that the Government's site was not such a facility)

Silver State Land LLC v. United States, No. 19-688 C (Aug. 17, 2021) (in suit based on Government's breach of contract to sell land to plaintiff by failing to convey land, plaintiff's depositing of refund check of purchase price and the liquidation of the escrow account did not constitute an election of the restitution remedy over expectation damages)

Westdale Northwest Center, LP v. United States, No. 16-113 C (July 9, 2021) (contract interpretation; tax adjustment provision in lease agreement to which parties agreed, although unambiguous, included an erroneous figure for the tax base; therefore, the lease agreement was a product of mutual mistake, for which contract reformation is the appropriate remedy)

Future Forest LLC v. Sec'y of Agr., No. 2020-2039 (Apr. 15, 2021) (Government did not breach implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to order more than the minimum guaranteed quantity in ID/IQ contract)

7800 Ricchi LLC v. United States, No. 18-1798 C (Jan. 21, 2021) (letter of intent signed by both parties did not constitute an enforceable lease agreement because it was to be followed by the actual lease, which the Government never signed)

Cherokee General Corp. v. United States, No. 18-412 C (Oct. 23, 2020) (in case involving disputed default termination, dismisses claim that wet soils were a differing site condition because contractor presented no evidence regarding either (i) an affirmative representation in the contract concerning soil conditions or (ii) the contractor's inability to anticipate such conditions)

JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. 19-1390 C (Oct. 16, 2020) (in a contract for the services of instructors that contained a "Termination for Convenience" clause and stated the maximum number of courses that could be ordered but was ambiguous as to whether the Government was required to order the maximum, the Government partially, constructively terminated the contract for convenience by ordering fewer than the maximum, entitling the contractor to compensation only for the courses it had provided)

Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. 16-1001 C (July 2, 2020) (action for Government's alleged breach (by partial termination)of timber sales contract is not barred by either (a) issue preclusion or (b) claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court because that action involved different issues and the breach claim could not have been brought by the contractor in the district court; Government did not breach implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by conducting environmental assessment that went beyond what was required by district court decision because Government's actions were not directed toward harming the contractor and were contemplated under applicable environmental requirements; contractor did not waive breach claim by continuing to perform on unterminated portion of contract)

Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, Nos. 06-387C & 13-988C (May 26, 2020) (plain language of bilateral settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction precluding contractor's current indirect cost claim for specified years; contractor's Chief Financial Officer had apparent authority to bind contractor to indirect cost rate agreements he signed especially where, for seven years, the contractor failed to raise the issue of his alleged lack of authority)

New England Specialty Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-643 C (May 26, 2020) (denies Government's motion for summary judgment concerning various delay claims by contractor because issues of fact remain concerning, inter alia, the length of delay the contractor can claim and the critical path)

North American Landscaping, Constr. and Dredge Co. v. United States, No. 17-903 C (Apr. 30, 2020) (contract interpretation; unambiguous, plain meaning of provisions concerning payment for amount of material removed during dredging work based on differences in before- and after-soundings precluded plaintiff's claim for additional for re-dredging work required to achieve required depth)

HCIC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a HCI General Contractors v. United States, No. 18-1943 C (Feb. 19, 2020) (contract interpretation; contrary to contractor's contention, contract's access to site provisions did not require Government to permit roof repair contractor to work on more than one roof at a time at federal prison)

Panther Brands, LLC, and Panther Racing, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1157 C (Dec. 17, 2019) (no implied-in-fact contract where none of government officials had actual (or implied actual) authority to commit Government to contract and no evidence that any government official with actual authority had ratified the alleged  agreement)

BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 18-178 C (Oct. 22, 2019) (contractor not entitled to equitable adjustment for equipment it was required to purchase after Contracting Officer allegedly removed GFE from contract because both Government Property (FAR 52.245) and Changes clauses incorporated in contract required contractor not to follow any directions unless made and signed in writing by Contracting Officer and contractor failed to allege any such written direction had been issued; these same specific contract requirements precluded contractor's arguments concerning waiver and ratification; Government Property clause also specifically absolved Government ffrom liability for contractor's breach of contract claim for decrease in GFE)

Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC v. United States, No. 15-336 C (Oct. 8, 2019) (on remand from CAFC; contract interpretation; Settlement Agreement required BLM to take more than perfunctory steps to provide data concerning amount of helium available for recovery; BLM breached agreement by failing to take adequate steps to provide certain required data), Government's motion for reconsideration denied

Pacific Coast Community Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-854 C (Oct. 1, 2019) (contract contains latent ambiguity concerning number of full-time equivalent employee hours that must be provided per contract year and whether replacement of employees is required for absences of less than two weeks, which must be resolved in favor of contractor's interpretation because Government's interpretation was not adopted until months after operation under contrary interpretation and does not give meaning to all contract requirements, including required vacation time in applicable wage determination; but contractor's damages claim must fail because it failed to provide any payroll records showing the actual wages it paid)

Bruhn Newtech, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 16-783 C (Sep. 24, 2019) (Government's distribution of items did not breach restricted software provision because items at issue were delivered under different contract)

Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. 11-492 C (Sep. 23, 2019) (releases signed by contractor, although broadly worded, did not cover subsequent claim for flood-event damages, which were "too attenuated" from the claims giving rise to the releases to be considered encompassed by them; contractor did not assume risk of flood event (monsoon season) because government-caused delays pushed contractor's work into that season)

Woodies Holdings, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 15-962 C  (June 13, 2019) (denies GSA's defense of unilateral mistake of fact because: (i) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a leased building's size for purposes of tax adjustment clause because it repeatedly ignored information as to actual size, which was readily available to it from multiple sources, absent any misrepresentation on part of plaintiff; and (ii) in view of conflicting testimony, Government did not satisfy its burden of proof in establishing lessor knew or should have known of Government's mistake)

Coastal Park LLC, et al. v. United States, No. 17-422 (May 28, 2019) (where IFB for sale of former Coast Guard housing complex contained clauses (a) disclaiming Government's obligation to maintain property between sale and closing and (b) limiting contractor's damages for failure to close to return of earnest money, court dismisses portions of Complaint seeking damages in excess of that amount in situation where hurricane damaged property between sale and closing and Government canceled contract after refusing fourth extension of closing date requested by contractor)

Kiewit Infrastructure West, Co. v. United States, No. 16-45 C (May 15, 2019) (contract interpretation; denies constructive change claim for excess costs of disposing of waste at designated government waste sites because contractor should have inquired concerning possible environmental impacts under the Clean Water Act)

4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. United States, No. 15-945 C (May 10, 2019) (Government infringed on plaintiffs' copyrighted software because Government authorized or consented to government contractor's copying of software in contractor's own labs and installing of the software in excess of purchased license; Government "with culpable state of mind" destroyed relevant electronic evidence that it had duty to preserve, which warrants sanctions for spoliation)

Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. 15-348 C (May 10, 2019) (contractor's duty-to-defend claim is barred because it accrued when contractor could request a sum certain and knew all the facts fixing the Government's purported liability, which was more than six years before the contractor submitted the claim to the Contracting Officer; contractor's duty-to-indemnify claim is not barred by CDA's limitations period because it accrued only four years prior to submittal to Contracting Officer; rejects Government's argument that contractor had superior bargaining power in negotiating contract with Government because, even though contractor was only utility available to Government, contractor was required by law to provide uniform terms for all similarly situated customers; contractor's recovery in this action for defense and settlement expenses it incurred in prior litigation must be reduced by amounts it received from third party to prevent double recovery where purported assignment of  subrogation claims is invalid under the Anti-Assignment Act because the claims have not been decided and the United States has not recognized the assignment)

BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 18-178 C (Apr. 5, 2019) (dismisses claims based on Government's failure to provide certain items of GFE because contract provisions specifically permitted the Government to increase, decrease, or substitute GFE without liability)

North American  Landscaping, Construction, and Dredge Co. v. United States, No. 17-903 C (Mar. 15, 2019) (denies contractor's various theories in support of claim for delays to dredging due to barge traffic because solicitation warned there would be periodic delays, actual conditions did not differ from those indicated in solicitation, and contractor failed to fulfill its duty to inquire as to extent of barge traffic; denies contractor's excusable delay claim for unusually severe weather because it was submitted 100 days after the contract was completed, not within 10 days of the beginning of any alleged weather event, as required by the contract; denies contractor's claim for allegedly delayed government completion survey because contractor failed to provide the required minimum 14 days advance notice between its request for a completion survey and the proposed date for the completion of work (and the date for the Government’s completion survey)

Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States, No. 14-549 C (Jan. 10, 2019) (denies contractor's constructive change claim for excavating and rebuilding embankment because contract unambiguously required it and contractor's contrary interpretation of contract section was not reasonable and was at odds with other sections of the contract; contractor entitled to summary judgment on defective specifications claim because Government knew survey data provided to contractor was inaccurate and that a number of the inaccuracies were the result of actions by the Government's own work crews and yet the Government withheld more accurate survey data from the contractor)

CKY, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-948 C (Oct. 12, 2018) (given all information made available to bidders prior to award, contractor's interpretation of subgrade specifications was unreasonable; Government was prejudiced by contractor's failure to provide timely notice of differing site conditions claim; Government entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim for liquidated damages for late completion)

Walsh Construction Co., et al. v. United States, No. 16-845 C (Oct. 3, 2018) (dismisses contractor's claims for: (i) for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing (because plaintiff's reading of specifications was unreasonable and Government's inspections were of a type to be expected in this contract and were not excessive);  and (ii) Type I differing site condition dewatering claim because (a) contract did not provide affirmative indication of subsurface water conditions; (b) evidence shows actual site conditions should have been foreseeable to contractor)

CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 16-950 C, et al. (July 30, 2018) (amended version of earlier opinion based on Government's motion for partial reconsideration)

Bechtel National, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-657 C (Apr. 3, 2018) (Government did not breach contract by disallowing contractor's defense costs associated with suits by former employees of the company for sexual and racial harassment and discrimination, which were ultimately settled)

Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-707 C (Dec. 1, 2017) (denies plaintiff's claims for site conditions and delay because contract did not place any responsibility for site condition or preparation on Government)

Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-707 C (Dec. 1, 2017) (originally filed Apr. 7, 2017) (even though Government's interpretation of contract ultimately proved correct and contractor's allegations that it signed two relevant modifications under duress are unsupported, Government's counterclaims in fraud are denied because contractor did not intend to defraud the Government by submitting certified claim, especially because individual who signed certification did not intend to commit fraud and believed in his interpretation of the contract)

Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-707 C  (Dec. 1, 2017) (originally filed August 31, 2016) (denies Government's counterclaims involving Special Plea in Fraud, False Claims Act, and anti-fraud provisions of CDA) for alleged double-billing because contract interpretation that differed from the Government's interpretation did not amount to fraudulent intent to deceive and, given the credibility of the witness who actually signed the claim certification, fact that other company officials disagreed with his position is not sufficient to establish fraud or that the claim was submitted in an inflated amount merely as a negotiating tactic)

Zebel, LLC v. United States, No. 16-420 C (Oct. 26, 2017) (pursuant to terms of IFB auction for purchase of real estate, plaintiff forfeited its bid registration deposit when it failed to provide additional money after the Government accepted its bid)

Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-446, -447, -448 C (Oct. 20, 2017) (denies plaintiff's claim that Government used wrong exchange rate to pay it because exchange rate used by Government was more favorable to plaintiff than correct rate)

MW Builders, Inc. f/n/a MW Builders of Texas, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-1023 C (Oct. 18, 2017) (contract included latent ambiguity concerning which of the contracting parties was required to sign a line extension agreement with a utility; extrinsic evidence demonstrates parties did not intend for contractor to sign it but instead intended to follow industry practice, which is to have end user sign it; Government's prolonged efforts to convince contractor to sign agreement and Government's delays in signing the agreement breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to the contractor and unreasonably and compensably delayed the construction project; subcontractor waived pass through claims by signing general release waivers each time it received a progress payment from the prime; insufficient evidence to conclude that by using certain estimated rather than actual costs in claim (which ultimately resulted in claim amount being overstated) contractor acted with specific intent to defraud Government in contravention of anti-fraud provision of CDA  or the Special Plea in Fraud Statute (28 U.S.C. 2514) or the False Claims Act), contractor's motion for reconsideration of portion of judgment concerning subcontractor's release of claims is denied because release was unconditional and court lacks jurisdiction to reform agreement between prime and sub

Baldi Bros., Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1300 C (Sep. 13, 2017) (under FAR 14.407-4(b)(2)(ii), contractor not entitled to recover on claim to modify contract to correct alleged mistake in bid because corrected bid would exceed the next lowest acceptable bid)

Stromness MPO, LLC v. United States, No. 14-711 C (Sep. 8, 2017) (contract interpretation; Postal Service did not breach lease by constructing demising wall that prevented access to certain areas in leased premises by those in other areas of building)

Magnus Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. 13-859 C (Aug. 31, 2017) (in fixed-price contract for levee restoration work, solicitation documents misled contractor as to amount of fill that would have to be imported for use on the project)

DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1034 C (Aug. 15, 2017) (contract unambiguously precluded Government from asserting prior material breach as an affirmative defense to plaintiff's claims)

RDA Construction Corp. v. United States, No 11-555 C (July 27, 2017) (contractor's superior knowledge argument fails because even though Government did not provide relevant information to the contractor concerning wharf's severe load restrictions, the visible condition of the wharf at the time of prebid inspections should have prompted the contractor to seek additional information; contractor not entitled to recovery for Type 1 differing site condition because solicitation did not affirmatively indicate that the wharf's condition would be different from what it turned out to be; contractor not entitled to recover for alleged misrepresentation of wharf's load bearing capacity because there was no such affirmative misrepresentation in solicitation; cardinal change theory fails because evidence shows that, before beginning work, contractor knew of the condition of which it ultimately complained; Government did not violate implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in any of numerous situations complained of by contractor; termination for default was justified and, therefore, Government entitled to assess liquidated damages; denies Government's counterclaim under CDA’s anti-fraud provision, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(c)(2), because contractor's claim was not baseless, indefensibly inflated, or premised on an affirmative misrepresentation of fact; Government's other counterclaims based on various fraud statutes fail for similar reasons), affirmed by CAFC

Horn & Assocs. v. United States, No. 8-415 C  (May 25, 2017) (Viewing work on contract for performance of recovery audits as a whole, contractor's performance was severely impeded, and defendant’s conduct, including a lack of cooperation, prevented contractor from completing totality of the contract requirements and constituted breach by Government of duty of good faith and fair dealing)

Gazpromneft-Aero Kyrgystan LLC v. United States, No. 15-1443 C (May 9, 2017) (denies claim for reimbursement of back taxes assessed by Kyrgyz Republic because contractor failed to give timely notice of assessment pursuant to requirement of FAR 52.229-6(j), which prejudiced DoD's ability to address issue)

Idaho Stage LLC v. United States, No. 16-548 C (May 2, 2017) (plain meaning of contract as a whole favors contractor's interpretation and, even if contract is ambiguous, ambiguity is latent and construed against the Government as the drafter)

Senate Builders and Construction Managers, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1196 C (Apr. 29, 2017) (denies contractor's claim for recovery of costs of importing backfill material because all the contractor's theories of recovery rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the Government's answer to one of the questions included as an amendment to the solicitation)

Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-500 C (Mar. 30, 2017) (summary judgment dismissing breach of contract claim because no material factual dispute concerning propriety of Government's testing and rejection of contractor's concrete density core samples; FHWA Manual established trade practice applicable to contractual issues but could not be used to conflict with contract terms)

CanPro Investments, Ltd. v. United States, No. 16-268 C (Jan. 26, 2017) (dismisses counts of complaint based on superior knowledge and impossibility of performance and entitlement to rescission of lease because they were not first presented to Contracting Officer; contractor failed to allege plausible grounds for claims of mutual mistake, misrepresentation, and concealment,  impracticability of performance or frustration of purpose; contractor has pled plausible breach-of-contract claim based on the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing for conduct occurring after execution of the lease), Government's motion for reconsideration denied

First Crystal Park Associates Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 15-315 C (Jan. 24, 2017) (where lease option contemplated renewal of entire leased space, Government's alleged attempt to renew only portion of space was not effective option exercise; Government official who allegedly reached oral agreement with plaintiff to exercise option for portion of space lacked authority to modify lease or create new one; alleged verbal agreement was not binding because it was not reduced to writing as parties apparently contemplated)

RQ Squared, LLC v. United States, No. 12-527 C (Jan. 3, 2017) (after limited discovery, grants Government's renewed motion for summary judgment and dismisses plaintiff's suit for breach of alleged implied-in-fact contract under which Postal Service was allegedly to protect plaintiff's proprietary information from disclosure and use because: (i) the court could not discern from plaintiff's pleadings and submissions exactly what proprietary information the Postal Service allegedly misappropriated; (ii) the Postal Service was using the disputed technology before plaintiff allegedly disclosed it to the Postal Service; and (iii) UPS developed disputed technology independently without unauthorized disclosure from the Postal Service)

Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. 11-492 C (Dec. 30, 2016) (because Government's actions, including suspending the work, were covered by Suspension of Work and Changes clauses, contractor is entitled to equitable adjustment, not breach damages)

Financial & Realty Services, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1532 C (Nov. 21, 2016) (plaintiff's failure to provide required project manager to perform contract services for period of time after its original project manager resigned was not excused by time required for Government to screen new candidate contractor offered to fill vacant position)

Certified Construction Co. of Kentucky, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1049 C  (Oct. 31, 2016) (contract interpretation; disputed contracts were requirements contracts)

Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No. 14-376 C (Sep. 26, 2016) (although plaintiff established breach by Government, it failed to prove damages)

Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No. 14-132 C (May 26, 2016) (boilerplate clauses in standard Postal Service daily mail transportation services contracts likely are not supported by consideration and unenforceable)

Evie's Catering, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-352 C (May 17, 2016) (amount stated in task order to supply meals was, unambiguously, only an estimate and was not a guaranteed payment)

Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-248 C (Mar. 25, 2016) (dismisses breach-of-contract action based on allegedly improper disallowance of closing fees because the contract unambiguously prohibited such fees in the situation involved in this dispute)

Ameriserv Trust and Financial Services Co. v. United States, No. 141161 C (Mar. 17, 2016) (Government breaches express warranties in a subordination agreement)

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, a Joint Venture v. United States, No. 15-885 C (Mar. 17, 2016) (refuses to dismiss suit for plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the 20-day written notice requirement of alleged constructive changes in a construction contract because the contractor plausibly alleged the Government had actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the changes claim)

SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-453 C (Dec. 7, 2015) (contractor not entitled to recover overhead and profit on its attorneys' fees; contractor not allowed, especially so late in proceedings and without first presenting claim to Contracting Officer, to change its claim for attorneys' fees from lodestar method to much larger one based on alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had not provided to court)

Horn & Assocs. v. United States, No. 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015) (numerous misstatements and inaccuracies in claim were attributable to (i) difficulties  caused by Government during performance and (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud or any intent to deceive Government)

DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-204 C (Oct. 27, 2015) (after prior decision finding Government liable for breach of lease agreement, court finds plaintiff entitled to quantum of damages specifically established in lease agreement, e.g., for unpaid rent amounts, charges for late payments, and attorney's fees)

Weston/Bean Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 11-31 C, 11-360 C (Sep. 11, 2015) (principles of contract interpretation; channel dredging contract was not limited to removal of "sediment" but required dredging of all material (except massive "massive, monolithic in situ rock") required to reach depth of 15 feet)

Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. 11-492 C (July 22, 2015) (contractor not entitled to costs of protecting workers from contamination at site because Government did not misrepresent site conditions or agree to pay for such costs; claim based on dewatering requirements and sewer conditions did not meet requirements for either Type I or Type II Differing Site Condition and was covered by an accord and satisfaction; accord and satisfaction also bars contractor's claims for flood events; Government's punchlist was not unreasonable; Government did not breach contract by failing to reimburse contractor for costs of preparing VECP)

Jacintoport International LLC v. United States, No. 14-541 C (May 20, 2015) (denies cross motions for summary judgment after finding contract provision concerning scope of required fumigation services latently ambiguous; grants Government's motion for summary judgment as to patently ambiguous payment provision concerning which contractor failed to inquire prior to bidding)

Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-807 C (May 19, 2015) (Summary judgment in favor of Government denying Type I Differing Site Conditions claim because plaintiff failed to prove conditions present at work site differed materially from those indicated in contract documents)

The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. 12-488 C (Apr. 30, 2015) (Government liability for breach of exclusive, commercial real estate brokerage agreement)