44 results for 'cat:"Military" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Tapp finds that the district court properly ruled in claims brought by a doctor who had been involuntarily separated by the Navy for failure to complete medical training in exchange for a paid educational scholarship because the doctor was not entitled to relief.
Court: Court of Federal Claims, Judge: Tapp, Filed On: May 24, 2024, Case #: 23-793, Categories: Employment, military, contract
J. Wilson dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The contractor failed to deliver three glacial pool coolers for use at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center in Panama City, FL and the Navy terminated the contract. The record shows that the Navy notified the contractor of the termination. The contractor admits it received notice of the termination, though it did not file its appeal with the board until 12 days after the 90-day window.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 63743, Categories: Jurisdiction, military, contract
J. Arnett sustains the contractor's appeal. The contractor initially submitted a change proposal on its design-build contract for renovation and repair of buildings at various Naval installations. The Navy says the proposal was then submitted as a "value engineering change proposal" which resulted in savings that were not shared with the contractor. Though the Navy says it conditionally accepted the proposal before the change, it made the contractor's phasing plan part of the contract when it modified to incorporate the final design. This modification adopted the phasing plan, which was the substance of the proposal. When the contracting officer executed the modification just one day after rejecting the proposal, she did so with full knowledge that the contractor considered its phasing plan to be a value engineering change proposal. The government, therefore, constructively accepted that proposal.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett , Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 63235, Categories: Construction, military, contract
[Consolidated] J. Herzfeld sustains the contractor's appeal for delay damages. The Navy refused to accept delivery of four cranes after a test of one of the cranes revealed damage. The contractor identified and fixed the problem, though the Navy would not accept its solution, causing further delay and increased costs. The record shows that the cranes met contractual requirements and were ready for delivery. The Navy’s decision to delay delivery based on a requested, unnecessary change to contractual requirements was not justified.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Herzfeld , Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 62797, Categories: military, contract
J. Stinson grants the government's motion for summary judgment. Contracted for the design and construction of various Afghan Army/Air Force enhancements for the airport at Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, the Taliban's takeover required the contractor to evacuate the project site. The contractor alleges that the government failed “to make a timely decision... which would have enabled [it] to demobilize...” Though the contractor says the Taliban’s actions at the airfield should have been anticipated, it has not alleged that the damages it sustained were foreseeable based upon the government’s alleged breach.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Stinson , Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 63414, Categories: International Law, military, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Mclish denies the contractor’s appeal claiming it was underpaid by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a seepage berm at a state prison in Louisiana. The contract contained an estimation of compacted fill amount, providing that the contractor would be paid the actual amount used as measured by the Corps’ surveys. The contractor raised no objection involving the survey that was conducted, which indicates its understanding of the contract was the same as the Corps’. Though the contractor now offers a different interpretation of the contract regarding its excavation and removal of organic material, it gives no evidentiary support that it held this interpretation all along.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Mclish, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 63632, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Sweet grants the Navy's motion for summary judgment. The contractor left a wooden wedge in a gearcase of the Navy helicopter-landing vessel's transmission while performing testing, which was pulverized by a pre-acceptance engine start. The Navy refused to cover costs of the debris clean-up and the contractor says this violates the liability and insurance clause of the contract. There is no genuine issue of material fact. The costs of removing the wood-debris occurred due to the contractor's defective workmanship.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Sweet , Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 62817, Categories: Insurance, military, contract
J. Taylor denies the Navy's motion for summary judgment on a contractor's action seeking payment for costs incurred due to severe weather. It alleges the government building project design changes on the joint reserve center in Des Moines, Iowa pushed construction into adverse weather periods. Though the government says the contractor signed a release resolving all costs, impact effect and delays arising out of or incidental to changes, material factual disputes remain as to whether the parties had a meeting of the minds as to the substance of the release.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Taylor , Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 63291, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Arnett denies the Army's motion to dismiss the contractor's appeal. The contractor filed an appeal from the denial of its claim involving missing trucks arising from orders against a blanket purchase agreement for the government to place call orders for material-handling equipment in Erbil, Iraq. The board lacks sufficient information to resolve the dispute over whether the claim for missing trucks includes separate claims or is one claim arising from the same facts.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett , Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 63522, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Eyester denies the Navy's motion for summary judgment. The contractor appeals the partial denial of its claim for compensation related to asbestos abatement at a building on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. The contractor, after the unforeseen finding of asbestos during its renovation, claimed defective specifications and submitted a cost proposal for its proposed change to demolish and replace walls. The matter was insufficiently briefed and there are disputed facts regarding the number of days of delay, and whether any government-caused delays were concurrent with delays within the contractor's control.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Eyester, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 62627, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Eyester grants the contractor's motion for summary judgment seeking the total award amount from a commercial items contract for Air Force housing maintenance services. After the end of the performance period, the government de-obligated unused funds via a bilateral modification. Though the government says the contractor waived its right to the claim when it signed the modification, the task order was fully funded and fixed-priced. The Air Force bore the maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Eyester , Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 63239, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Melnick finds the government breached a demolitions contract. The contractor says it was sometimes prevented from accessing the worksite to eliminate concrete weapons targets at the White Sands Missile Range, and was also blocked or evacuated due to missile testing without notification. The government did not disclose the information with its proposal or otherwise inform contractors prior to bidding, and its attempt to avoid liability due to its lack of a precise schedule is meritless.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Melnick , Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 62628, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. McLish denies the government's motion for summary judgment on a contractor action seeking an $818,000 adjustment to a contract for uniform tailoring with the U.S. Marine Corps. There are questions of fact, as the record shows the contracting officer found the contractor's requests for equitable adjustment meritorious and agreed government estimates were erroneous.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: McLish , Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 63359, Categories: Government, military, contract
[Consolidated] J. Herzfeld grants the Army Corps of Engineers' motion to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense that the contractor made material misrepresentations in its proposal. The corps alleges multiple misrepresentations as to the contract to construct an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site on Deveselu Air Base in Romania. Though the contractor says the corps' delay in raising the defense should result in waiver, its pleadings must be treated as true in considering the motion to amend.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Herzfeld , Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 62681, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Stinson grants summary judgment to the Air Force in this dispute over the denial of the contractor’s request that it rescind its unilateral modification assessing a credit of $493,639 in costs for a deductive change to the contract for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems at Tinker Air Force Base. A subcontractor submitted a bid then determined that the work was not required and did not price it. Evidence shows that the subcontractor recognized an ambiguity in the contract regarding whether the work was required but did not seek clarification. The contractor’s motion for summary judgment admits knowledge of the ambiguity, pre-award.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Stinson, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 63148, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Osterhaut grants the Army’s motion for summary judgment in this dispute over the Blanket Purchase Agreement for the contractor to provide equipment to Forward Operating Base Thompson in Afghanistan. During the period of anticipated evacuation and base closure, and mobilization and demobilization of the contract, various deliveries were hijacked and equipment was confiscated by the Taliban. It is undisputed that the contractor requested additional time to demobilize but didn’t request that the Army provide security. The contractor was responsible for its own security. Though the Army gave additional time for mobilization, this did not create any duty to provide the same amount of time for demobilization.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Osterhaut , Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 62125, Categories: military, contract
J. D'Alessandris denies the Army’s motion to strike certain counts from the contractor’s appeal from the denial of its claim for costs incurred in maintaining financial records for audit during its contract for services to the Army Communications-Electronics Command at Fort Hood, Texas. The contracting officer repeatedly delayed acting on the contractor’s indirect rate letters, which resulted in further costs of maintaining an office. Parts of the complaint that the Army alleges require a sum certain do not constitute separate claims but are part of the contractor’s complaints about the manner in which the Army administered the contract. The claim only seeks reimbursement for costs incurred during a certain period to comply with audit requirements.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: D’Alessandris , Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 63259, Categories: military, contract
J. Arnett denies the Army’s motion for summary judgment on the contractor’s claims for unpaid invoices. Under the Blanket Purchase Agreement, the Army could place call orders for forklifts and bulldozers at the Old Erbil International Airport in Erbil, Iraq. One invoice was required to be submitted for each call unless paid for by a government purchase card. Ninety-six invoices identified by the Army do not correspond with invoices listed on the contractor’s spreadsheets, and these material facts remain in dispute.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 63521, Categories: military, contract
J. Arnett grants the contractor’s petition to issue a contracting officer’s final decision to address its termination settlement and breach of contract proposals submitted after the termination for convenience of the contract for evaluation and repair and modification of turbine aircraft engines for the Navy. Both proposals are claims under the Contract Disputes Act and the board has jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: 63637-PET, Categories: military, contract
J. Arnett denies the contractor’s motion for leave to amend its challenge of a negative evaluation entered in the Contractor Performance Assessment Report system regarding the contract for school bus services for Navy joint bases. The contractor seeks to add another count asserting that the termination of its contract is a “legal nullity” and that the contracting officer “exceeded her authority in terminating the contract for cause.” This count is a challenge to a decision that was not timely appealed, and the board does not have jurisdiction to consider it.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 63555, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Arnett denies the contractor’s appeal of this commercial items contract to lease and maintain several types of non-tactical vehicles for government use at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq. The contractor requests that the termination of the contract for cause be converted to a termination for convenience and seeks compensation for damages and restoration of rights under the contract. The contractor failed to deliver vehicles meeting contract requirements and has not demonstrated that its default was excusable.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett, Filed On: October 3, 2023, Case #: 63320, Categories: Government, military, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Melnick grants the government’s motion for summary judgment in this dispute seeking an adjustment due to increases in the contractor’s price for bomb bodies of gray iron. An economic price adjustment contract clause provided for a price adjustment based upon fluctuations in the price of steel. The plain meaning of steel does not encompass gray iron and the contractor has not met the standard to consider purported contrary evidence of trade practice, or that trade practice equates steel with gray iron.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Melnick, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 63280, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Sweet denies the contractor’s appeal of the Army Corps of Engineers’ request that it add a thicker polyurethane foam insulation to arch-span structures constructed at Camp Hero East, Afghanistan. The contract required that the foam limit flame-spread and smoke-development and have a thermal barrier, complying with International Building Code. The Corps did not direct the contractor to perform work not required under the contract, or enlarge its performance requirements, so there was no constructive change.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Sweet, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 62124, Categories: Construction, military, contract
J. Shackleford grants the Army's motion to dismiss this appeal of its termination for cause of a contract for the purchase and delivery of computer monitors and printers to Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The printers were delayed in delivery and the contractor failed to properly communicate the reason for the delay. There was no timely appeal from the contracting officer’s final decision pursuant to the 90-day limitations period in the Contract Disputes Act.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Shackleford , Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 63466, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Taylor denies the Navy's motion to dismiss this appeal asserting that its demand letter seeking repayment for a specified amount previously paid to the contractor for COVID-related costs was not a contracting officer’s final decision under the Contract Disputes Act. The Navy, having sought services to provide maintenance and operations at the Atlantic Undersea Test & Evaluation Center contends it issued the letter to invite comment on the contractor's refusal to substantiate the COVID related costs. Looking at the totality of correspondence, the Board finds a “stalemate” regarding the allowability of costs had been reached, resulting in the officer’s issuance of the demand letter and effective final decision.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Taylor , Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 63233, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Arnett sustains the contractor's appeal of the commercial services contract awarded by the U.S. Air Force for delivery of crane equipment, a tractor and fuel pods from Houston, TX to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Delays in Houston led to additional costs and the government contends the contractor relied upon unauthorized instructions from the shipper, making a business decision to wait. The contractor should not be penalized for waiting, satisfying its performance objective and honoring the special instructions of its One Time Only booking. The withdrawn container stuffing portion of the claim is dismissed.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Arnett , Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 63407, Categories: Government, military, contract
J. Melnick decides entitlement, as the government has consented to this appeal of the termination for convenience of a commercial items contract for the delivery and maintenance of portable toilets and hand washing stations for the Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk. The contractor is entitled to recover the contract price for all units delivered and equipment provided in response to orders stemming from the change. Quantum will be decided at later proceedings.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Melnick , Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 63449, Categories: Government, military, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Cates-Harman grants summary judgment to the Army Corp of Engineers in this appeal for permitting requirement compensation on its contract to design and build a 600-member Army Reserve Center near Waldorf, Charles County, Maryland. The plain language of the contract clearly states that the contractor was responsible for permits. The contractor cannot shift unexpected costs to the government under a constructive change theory as it cannot show that additional work was ordered. Rescinded unilateral modifications were mistakenly issued, with the government overpaying $418,406. The Army Corps of Engineers is entitled to recoup this.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Cates-Harman, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: 62972, Categories: Government, military, contract