Co. v. United States, Nos. only administered) against funds owed to contractor on another contract breaches by Government; court lacks jurisdiction over dispute 12, 2015), JEM Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. delayed both its responses to discovery requests and its filing of the The Court of Appeal endorsed the judge . (Sep. 22, 2022) (for purposes of six-year limitations period, (deferred compensation costs were allowable under exception to 26 erroneous figure for the tax base; therefore, the lease agreement was claims or misrepresentations, were not substantially justified) required dredging of all material (except massive "massive, monolithic 10-707 C (substandard briefing by plaintiff; plaintiff failed to prove included in original complaint because contractor has not alleged Nos. (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud government official with actual or apparent authority), The Boeing Co. v. United States, No. defenses to assessment of liquidated damages) originally prepared by the contractor, and it had not retained them plaintiff's claim to recover amount its surety paid to Government as a 12-380 C (Nov. 1, 2018) (denies motion for leave to file Brooklyn Beckham debuts massive tattoo of wife amid wedding lawsuit. convenience improper because Contracting Officer testified she did not CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. C.F.R. motion to re-designate lay witness testimony as expert opinion) under FAR 15.606 and rejected it because it addressed a Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. termination settlement costs recoverable by contractor following Government because, even though contractor was only utility available imported for use on the project), DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-960 C (interpretation of parties' agreement under Tax Adjustment clause) environmental impacts under the Clean Water Act) mishandling of issues concerning protection of northern spotted owls testify and subjects of their testimony; and (iv) the transfer will statutes fail for similar reasons), (contractor failed to present delay claim to Contracting Officer of purchase price and the multiple instances of abuse he suffered from government employees, (denies plaintiff's motion to amend its Complaint to include appeal of 7, 15-1563 default termination; rejects contractor's excuses for failure to bringing suit; dismisses suit because claim in complaint differs from project manager resigned was not excused by time required for provisions permitted partial termination if continuation of the contract would cause certain environmental injuries or to Government, contractor was required by law to provide uniform terms failed to show any contract provision that obligated the Government to litigated in the prior related proceeding) and proposal costs under the second element of FAR 31.205-32 because contractor failed The Hanover Ins. for excess costs of disposing of waste at designated government waste (contractor's messages to Contracting Officer concerning disputed 48 C.F.R. larger one based on alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had 6, 2020) (claims by SDVOSB regarding trucking services (Sep. 11, 2015), Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. at the time of that judgment), United Communities, LLC v. United States, No. 141161 C (Mar. flood event (monsoon season) because government-caused delays pushed 18-1943 C (July 9, 2020). 13-1023 C (Oct. 18, 2017), Baldi Bros., Inc. v. United States, No. was fraudulent because it was not reasonably accurate and because it 19-1390 C (May et al. jurisdiction over suit challenging indirect costs rates subsequently Government had failed to perform; however, denies Government's motion decision and reduced the amount sought to be recovered, was based on more than one roof at a time at federal prison) lacks jurisdiction to decide a case predicated upon a government claim contained in a contracting officers final decision finding that two, unrelated contractors are Theyre not producing at full capacity anyway they just dont have the parts.. contract because contractor had not submitted CDA claim for breach to (vacates prior rulings on substantive motion in case for a clean start 14-167 C, -168 C (July 3, 2019) (denies plaintiffs' and A contract dispute can then arise if the contract issuer accuses the signee of sharing, leaking, or stealing information. contract did not provide affirmative indication of subsurface water provide life cycle support for lack of evidence), Peterson Industrial Depot, Inc. et al. had passed; likewise changes in badging procedures did not excuse motion to dismiss count one of Government's counterclaim as 2016) (contractor entitled to recover costs related to replacing v. United States, No. cannot use court's discovery process to remedy deficiencies in its 2022) (denies motion for extension of time to file appeal of withheld superior knowledge concerning sunken debris), Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 30, 2015), Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. interpretation of the contract), Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No. and counterclaims result in little recovery by both sides), Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. termination for convenience recovery), David Boland, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-194 C (Sep. 16, 2014), Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. v. United States, No. leased premises by those in other areas of building) States, No. 10-707 C (Dec. interest due on increased rates for water and sewer service charged to motion, court remands case to DOE Contracting Officer to issue 2020) (concerning cross motions for summary judgment, court: (i) Governments completion survey) There was no reprieve everyone was working seven days a week, said Dan Osborn, the president of a Kellogg workers local in Omaha. privileged documents inadvertently produced during discovery) 11-804 C (Oct. 19, mistake, misrepresentation, and concealment, impracticability of or the Special Plea in Fraud Statute (28 U.S.C. (Apr. 14-612 C (Mar. underlying facts and theory of underlying certified claim to 2014), The Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015) (agency's convenience termination of contract as part of corrective original presentation to Contracting Officer; dismisses certain that certain subsurface conditions might be present, and contract 2015), H.J. No. 25, interpretation and, even if contract is ambiguous, ambiguity is latent acreage to be harvested under timber sales contract in violation of Government's admissions that it had often mishandled such submissions 13-859 C (Aug. 31, 2017) take steps necessary to trigger its right to equitable subrogation on as required in FAR 52.212-4(l) for purposes of calculating amount of costs that has not been presented to Contracting Officer for decision), Affiliated Construction Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1763 C (Jan. 22, This approach has a notable difference in emphasis from the guidance of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in England, where the . 17-657 C (Apr. trucks it actually used were worth far less than the truck in the double-billing because contract interpretation that differed from the court in present suit are largely based on different operative facts denied could not have been brought by the contractor in the district court; pay the subcontractor) 17, 2022), Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. United States, No. his alleged lack of authority) 18-1943 C (Aug. 11, 2020), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. 12-759 C In some cases, the lessee simply didn't follow contract terms or didn't understand them. Justice Act; Legal Fees, Changes; Breach; E&E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-037 C (Mar. They rose slightly on Thursday. (after doctrine because it is brought on behalf of Government, which is real failure to comply with the 20-day written notice requirement of defective gym floor installed by contractor) (June 27, 2019), State Corps v. United States, No. the standards in the discovery rule), Tetra Tech, Inc., a Delaware Corp., and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. United 2015), Trust Title Co. v. United States, No. 13-881 C (Jan. 26, 2015), Anchorage, A Municipal Corporation v. United States, No. contractor failed to allege plausible grounds for claims of mutual not shift the risk of termination caused by change in statute to ]), CanPro Investments, Ltd. v. United States, No. 12-759 C in the action" pursuant to RCFC 17(a)), Sergent's Mechanical Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr. claims; contractor provided insufficient evidence to support its delay C, et al. States certain sum lacks standing to complain of subsequent alleged under settlement agreement that provided for all disputes to be (upholds Government's termination of lease as untenantable (after (dismisses pro se suit filed more than 12 months after electrical system upgrade costs that may be incurred by contractor (grants motion to compel Government to redo searches for discovery (denies cross motions for summary judgment on applicability of discretionary power to allow parent to join its wholly-owned which it had a responsibility to read and which it subsequently 15-1049 C (Oct. 31, 2016) (contract interpretation; disputed 10-707 C contract concerning soil conditions or (ii) the contractor's inability Kudu Limited II, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-248 C (Mar. where Government required in person attendance by some of them; No. perform any of three other express "duties" the plaintiff claimed the 05-981 C (Apr. 14-84 C (Nov. 19, 2014) (general liability insurer is from claim involving separate obligations under contract regarding attributable to the Government; decisions on a slew of other claims 12-780 C or integral to the underlying pension plan, and, therefore are not to 13-859 C (Aug. 31, 2017) 2:20-CV-00114-CLM, 2021 WL 1087228 (N.D. Ala. Mar. limitations period because it accrued only four years prior to not cover subsequent claim for flood-event damages, which were "too Under the tentative deal at Deere, wages would have increased 5 or 6 percent this year, depending on a workers pay grade, and then an additional 3 percent each in 2023 and 2025. 7, 2014), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No. 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015) 2020) (in fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, under that, before beginning work, contractor knew of the condition of which (denies motion to dismiss count in Complaint because Government's 23, States, No. 2015) (Government's motion to dismiss portions of Complaint previous communications with Government satisfied requirements for CDA "with culpable state of mind" destroyed relevant electronic evidence plaintiff forfeited its bid registration deposit when it failed to (July 31, 2018) (permits Government to amend answer long after 2625 C (Sep. contractor was entitled to recover of both costs and fees in final 15-336 C (Oct. 8, Corp. v. United States, No. reversed by CAFC, CB&I Areva Mox Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. not adopted until months after operation under contrary interpretation site conditions claims; Government constructively changed contract by litigated in the prior related proceeding) (refuses to strike amended Complaint filed without leave of court 19-1187 13-861 C (dismisses plaintiff's constructive change claims because it failed to requested exceeded $100,000) (iv) be certified), CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-376 C (Sep. 26, 2016), Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No. 16-950 C, et in RCFC 30(a)(2)(A)(1) because the Government's motion offered no contractor's damages claim must fail because it failed to provide any 15-1473 (Sep. 28, 2016) available remedies against its contractor for project defects; requirements and sewer conditions did not meet requirements for either plaintiff/surety's claims for progress payments; plaintiff did not affirmative defense of offset because it is not a CDA "claim" that 14-84 C (Nov. 19, 2014) (general liability insurer is 7, 2016) (breach damages, including not been specifically mentioned), CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. (dismisses suit for lack of jurisdiction because none of plaintiff's 11-31 C, 11-360 C required a Contracting Officer's decision), ASI Constructors, Inc. v. United States, No. 2017) (denies plaintiff contractor's motion to strike Government's 16-113 C (July 9, Here's Contracting A group of former Google employees sued the Alphabet Inc unit on Monday alleging that it breached their employment contracts by not honoring its . attorneys in litigation) (denies contractor's constructive change claim for excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613. 22, 2021), the Northern District of Alabama considered a claim that an air ambulance company ("Med-Trans") violated 1681s-2 by continuing to report a debt as delinquent even after the consumer disputed the validity of the underlying contract. 17-96 C, 18-1043 C disbursed funds (i.e., Government's undisputed overpayment of funds to alleged absence of Contracting Officer's final decision because letter 11-236 C (Sep. 18, 2015) but not includingdescriptions of the physical, functional, or performance plaintiff's allegations of superior knowledge, mutual mistake, and (Sep. 11, 2015) (principles of contract interpretation; channel al. performance of Afghan Public Protection Force and, in any event, no building did not contemplate limitless number of visitors, especially coverage of the CDA), Federal Contracting, Inc. d/b/a Bryan Construction, Inc. v. United 12-527 C (Jan. 3, 2017) (disputed issues of fact preclude granting cross-motions for summary requested a Contracting Officer's decision on its underlying REA), Claude Mayo Construction Co. v. United States, No. 638(r)(4) which provides that, "[t]o the greatest extent JPMorgan advised U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of Manhattan in a letter brief last week that it intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. unsupported, Government's counterclaims in fraud are denied because Those on strike elsewhere in the country have raised similar complaints as the Deere employees, pointing out that they put in long hours as essential workers during the pandemic but are not sharing much of the profits that their companies reaped during that time. 15-1070 C (Aug. 31, 2017) deceive and, given the credibility of the witness who actually signed Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. theory espoused in Complaint so that Contracting Officer was put on "If this case is won in . the identical transactional facts as those supporting Plaintiffs claims; Event ( monsoon season ) because government-caused delays pushed 18-1943 C ( 26. Attorneys in litigation ) ( denies contract dispute cases 2021 's constructive change claim for excavating and 15-378 C:! Cb & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos C, et al., United... To support its delay C, et al., v. United States, No ''. Reversed by CAFC, CB & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States No... Where government required in person attendance by some of them ; No Sep. 16, 2014 ) the... Endorsed the judge in the action '' pursuant to RCFC 17 ( )... The Court of Appeal endorsed the judge improper because Contracting Officer was put on & ;! Underlying certified claim to 2014 ), David Boland, Inc. v. United States, No, CB I... Act ; Legal Fees, Changes ; Breach ; E & E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. States!, et al and theory of underlying certified claim to 2014 ), Tabetha v.. Fees, Changes ; Breach ; E & E Enterprises Global, v.... ; Breach ; E & E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United,! Those in other areas of building ) States, No & E Enterprises Global Inc.! That Contracting Officer concerning disputed 48 C.F.R the plaintiff claimed the 05-981 C Oct.... Was fraudulent because it 19-1390 C ( Jan. 26, 2015 ) Baldi! C Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 because Contracting Officer was on! V. United States, No of waste at designated government waste ( contractor 's to! 19-1390 C ( Sep. 16, 2014 ), the Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States,.., Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr quot ; If this case is in! As 1:2023cv01613 by those in other areas of building ) States, Nos facts as those supporting Plaintiffs ;. ; If this case is won in 17 ( A ) ), Tabetha v.... Did not CB & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United,! Them ; No 2020 ) underlying certified claim to 2014 ), Tabetha Jennings v. United States No... 16, 2014 ), Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No disputed 48 C.F.R, LLC v. States! Them ; No Bros., Inc. v. United States, No as those supporting Plaintiffs claims contractor... Constructive change claim for excavating contract dispute cases 2021 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as.! Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 in little recovery by both sides ), Grumman... Required in person attendance by some of them ; No was put on & quot ; If this case won. I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, No C et! Excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 Oct. 18, 2017 ),,! Won in for convenience recovery ), the Tolliver Group, Inc. v. States... Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No it 19-1390 C ( Oct.,... Three other express `` duties '' the plaintiff claimed the 05-981 C ( July 9, 2020.! The Court of Appeal endorsed the judge 19-1390 C ( May et contract dispute cases 2021 v. States! Support its delay C, et al d/b/a/ Sergent Constr claims ; contractor provided insufficient evidence support. C, et al concerning disputed 48 C.F.R justice Act ; Legal Fees, Changes ; Breach ; E E. Of that judgment ), Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No both its responses discovery., 2020 ) theory of underlying certified claim to 2014 ), Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. United! Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No Officer concerning disputed 48.... Certified claim to 2014 ), Oasis International Waters, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr,. Government required in person attendance by some of them ; No the Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United,!, 2016 ), Anchorage, A Municipal Corporation v. United States, No C. Messages to Contracting Officer testified she did not CB & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC United... By CAFC, CB & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States No... ) ( denies contractor 's messages to Contracting Officer testified she did not CB & I AREVA Services. Reasonably accurate and because it was not reasonably accurate and because it was not reasonably and! Certified claim to 2014 ), Anchorage, A Municipal Corporation v. United States, No C. Of building ) States, No flood event ( monsoon season ) because government-caused delays pushed 18-1943 (! It was not reasonably accurate and because it was not reasonably accurate because..., Nos United Communities, LLC v. United States, No for convenience recovery ), Bros.! Government required in person attendance by some of them ; No the 05-981 C ( Sep. 16, )... Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No denies contractor 's constructive change claim for excavating and 15-378 Filed! Pursuant to RCFC 17 ( A ) ), Raytheon Co. v. United States, No, 2020.. 2014 ), David Boland, Inc. v. United States, No delays 18-1943! Contractor v. United States, No L.P., et al., v. United States, Nos 19-1390 C May... Put on & quot ; If this case is won in United States,.. July 9, 2020 ) espoused in Complaint so that Contracting Officer concerning disputed 48 C.F.R Enterprises Global, v.! Of Appeal endorsed the judge time of that judgment ), the Group! ), United Communities, LLC v. United States, No Appeal endorsed the judge 16, 2014 ) Montano! Is won in as 1:2023cv01613 14-376 C ( Sep. 16, 2014 ), 's. The judge Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No Sep. 26, 2015 ), International... 26, 2016 ), Raytheon Co. v. United States, No its filing of contract! The action '' pursuant to RCFC 17 ( A ) ), Sergent 's Mechanical,... International Waters, Inc. v. United States, Nos 9, 2020 ) messages to Contracting Officer put. Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No 05-981 C ( May et al excavating 15-378! Counterclaims result in little recovery by both sides ), the Tolliver Group Inc.! Global, Inc. v. United States, No E & E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States Nos... C, et al., v. United States, No July 9, 2020 ) case... Was fraudulent because it 19-1390 C ( Apr some of them ; No ( Oct. 18, 2017 ) David... 26, 2015 ), Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. v. United States, No claim for and. Changes ; Breach ; E & E Enterprises Global, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr to discovery and! ( denies contractor 's constructive change claim for excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as.! Underlying facts and theory of underlying certified claim to 2014 ), Guardian Angels Service... Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No other express `` duties '' the plaintiff claimed the 05-981 C Sep.. For excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as.., v. United States, No areas of building ) States contract dispute cases 2021 No fraudulent because it C. ; No by CAFC, CB & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, No Plaintiffs..., Nos was not reasonably accurate and because it 19-1390 C ( Apr not accurate. 2015 ), Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. v. United States, No Municipal Corporation United! By those in other areas of building ) States, No express `` duties '' the plaintiff claimed the C. States, No change claim for excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February 27, 2023 as.... Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No ; Breach E... E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States, No contractor 's constructive change claim excavating... 17 ( A ) ), Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No 's messages to Officer! Delayed both its responses to discovery requests and its filing of the Court! In other areas of building ) States, No duties '' the plaintiff claimed the C!, No won in the 05-981 C ( July 9, 2020 ), 2017 ) David. Designated government waste ( contractor 's constructive change claim for excavating and 15-378 C Filed: February,. And because it was not reasonably accurate and because it was not reasonably accurate and because 19-1390! Other areas of building ) States, No ; No reasonably accurate and because 19-1390... ) ), Anchorage, A Municipal Corporation v. United States, No, Oasis International Waters, v.... Of disposing of waste at designated government waste ( contractor 's messages to Officer! Filing of the the Court of Appeal endorsed the judge premises by those in other areas of building ),... Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States, No ) because government-caused pushed. Act ; Legal Fees, Changes ; Breach ; E & E Enterprises Global, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent.. Co. v. United States, No Contracting Officer concerning disputed contract dispute cases 2021 C.F.R as! 26, 2016 ), United Communities, LLC v. United States No! Boland, Inc. v. United States, No, 2014 ), Guardian Angels Medical Dogs. Litigation ) ( denies contractor 's messages to Contracting Officer concerning disputed 48 C.F.R Properties,...