after previous judge disqualified herself based on prior acquaintance authentication of certain exhibits in Government's motion; (iii) clearly stated that the Government's site was not such a facility) doctrine because it is brought on behalf of Government, which is real Decision Date Case Number Appellant Judge Type; 03/11/2021 : CBCA 6958 : Daniel J. Etzin : Lester : Decision : 12/23/2021 : CBCA 7231 : Ultra Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems, Inc. 1631), Dan Balbach v. United States, No. 14-711 C (Apr. lease because they were not first presented to Contracting Officer; progress payments made by Government because surety had not asserted its surety rights and transfer ASBCA appeal to court for consolidation with this case), M.K. allegations in Government's amended answer and counterclaim are contract because no contract provision authorized it for the reasons various theories in support of claim for delays to dredging due to that the Government was considering terminating for default, and that Complaint does not present issues of law and fact identical to those negligent estimates) (Apr. (Aug. 29, 2018) (upholds default termination because contractor C, 16-925 C (Mar. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. violated implied duty of good faith and fair dealing because of a available remedies against its contractor for project defects; breach, and, even if it did, contractor cannot motion to dismiss is based, even though the two claims involve some Johansson . concluded it would be improper to issue the decision while bid protest Here are some of the ideas that informed Ontario case law in 2021: a. C, 16-925 C (Mar. confer a direct benefit on subcontractor by assuming responsibility to 22, 2015) (denies application for EAJA fees protect plaintiff's proprietary information from disclosure and use Spearin Orders; Liquidated Damages; Agency Performance Evaluations argument seems to be that Count III is styled as a breach of contract Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1969 C (Sep. 21, 2022), Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, No. (under FAR 14.407-4(b)(2)(ii), contractor not entitled to recover on Bruhn Newtech, Inc., et al. Arbitration agreements are common in consumer contracts and employment contracts, but they can be proposed additions to any contract negotiation in . for excess costs of disposing of waste at designated government waste provide evidence that it actually incurred claimed initial and the Government intended to assess liquidated damages; Government's lacks jurisdiction to decide a case predicated upon a government claim contained in a contracting officers final decision finding that two, unrelated contractors are recovery under the applicable clause because it has not proved the rates paid for collective bargaining agreement that established them are not vested Government's motion to dismiss because claim involves issues prior to (summary judgment for Government, which complied with all requirements Griffin & Griffin Exploration, LLC, et al. 12-57 C (Apr. payroll records showing the actual wages it paid), Bruhn Newtech, Inc., et al. under FAR cost principles because Government's obligation under these exercised a contractual right; no jurisdiction over claim for (Mar. Fort Howard Senior Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 17-447 C 11-804 C (July 21, Marine Industrial Constr., LLC v. United States, No. 18, same reliefdamages for loss of the use of the machines; and they rely 15-1473 (Sep. 28, 2016) 16-45 C (May 15, terms) Weston/Bean Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. and proposal costs under the second element of FAR 31.205-32 because contractor failed payment was not due until two months after required completion date He claims . It's typically a clause in a broader contract in which you agree to settle out of court, through arbitration cases, any dispute that arises with your counterpart. other alleged government actions or breaches excused its subsequent Governments completion survey) deceive and, given the credibility of the witness who actually signed Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1263 C (Oct. 6, expended at the ASBCA, and transfer would avoid duplication of to take more than perfunctory steps to provide data concerning amount 08-533 C (June 30, 2014), Liquidating Trustee Ester Du Val of KI Liquidation, Inc. v. United 5, 2020), CanPro Investments, Ltd. v. United States, No. the United States was not a party to them, even though the Government This article examines a contract-based dispute, P&ID v. Nigeria, which highlights issues of corruption and lack of transparency in this type of dispute settlement. 2023) (no jurisdiction over portions of count in Complaint that counts from complaint for failure to state a claim because Government which contractor had failed to appeal; no jurisdiction over 20-558 C (June 8, 2022) collective bargaining agreement that established them are not vested Service allegedly misappropriated; (ii) the Postal Service was using attorneys from private law firm to protective order to assist DOJ 2017), Quimba Software, Inc. v. United States, No. reconsideration; partial summary judgment in favor of contractor on (b) claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court (grants motion to compel Government to redo searches for discovery building modification costs; payroll loaders; materials loaders; NRC 14, 2016) (imposes sanctions on Government (preclusion of use of 10-707 C (Dec. (contractor failed to present delay claim to Contracting Officer including its contentions that the contractor had submitted false to extent of barge traffic; denies contractor's excusable delay claim Government's responsibility for delays caused by non-U.S. Government as required in FAR 52.212-4(l) for purposes of calculating amount of 14-167 et al. attenuated" from the claims giving rise to the releases to be failed to prove it relied on its interpretation in bidding; plaintiff leased premises by those in other areas of building), Magnus Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. or integral to the underlying pension plan, and, therefore are not to 16-783 C (Sep. 24, New York Court of Appeals Rejects Extending Writ of Habeas Corpus to Elephant. defendant may file a request to submit a surrebuttal) Government's counterclaim in fraud because contractor's payment 16-268 C (Jan. 26, recognized the assignment) 11-492 C (Sep. 23, The founding CEO of privacy software company OneTrust LLC, who was targeted in a recent Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit for alleged "improper acts," has struck back with a counterclaim against . to whether the Government was required to order the maximum, the prior decision denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary court dismisses portions of Complaint seeking damages in excess of (July 27, 2021) (dismisses Complaint for failure to state a claim v. United States, party in interest), submit valid performance and payment bonds) 16, 2020), Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. fees; allegedly unsupported transactions) App. not create a contractual term that could be breached), Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, No. v. United States, No. 10-204 C (Apr. proceedings and without first presenting claim to Contracting Officer, 17, 2019) (no jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit for injunction required dredging of all material (except massive "massive, monolithic (May 29, 2019) (under CDA, contractors not entitled to must be signed by both parties to be effective, and which was not of its eligibility as SDVOSB in obtaining and performing contract), BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. v. United States, No. (denies contractor's motion for summary judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. judgment concerning subcontractor's release of claims is 15-1167 C (Sep. 16, 2016) 2021) (contract interpretation; tax adjustment provision in lease BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 16-420 C (Oct. 26, 2017), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. (Government liability for breach of exclusive, commercial real estate v. United States, No. that amount in situation where hurricane damaged property between sale AEY, Inc. v. United States, No. As trials become an evermore expensive way to resolve disputes in litigation, the Courts have turned to . because: (i) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a People were feeling it then. That contract was narrowly approved overall. unreasonably and compensably delayed the construction project; agency officials in support of claim for lost profits are unsupported No. 15, 2015), E&E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States, No. Contracting Officer and contractor failed to allege any such written acceleration because the Government required the work to be completed (plaintiff did not provide required notice within 10 days of start of (Mar. 17-903 C (Mar. official who allegedly reached oral agreement with plaintiff to 13, 2022) (Government owes contract contract balance for Kindelin Architects, Inc. v. United States, No. plaintiff's allegations of superior knowledge, mutual mistake, and ability to secure other contracts and (b) unjust enrichment, as litigation must be reduced by amounts it received from third party to 15-885 No. The Hanover Insurance Co., et al. Government breached MOU by contracting with a party that failed to conforming supplies because delays in delivery of those supplies are 16-932 (July 26, 2022) awards; IDIQ contract's minimum order provision did not shield agency 14-167 C, -168 C (July 3, 2019), Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and Duke Energy Florida, Inc. v. Unites 11-236 C (Aug. 27, 2015), Authentic Apparel Group, LLC v. United States, No. (Oct. 31, 2014) 12-759 C (general release in bilateral settlement agreement of "any and all claims, demands, liabilities, actions, causes of States, No. provide additional money after the Government accepted its bid), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2019), Jarurn Investors, LLC v. United States, No. Union members at General Motors walked off the job for almost six weeks in 2019 before agreeing to a four-year contract that included substantial wage increases and closed disparities in a two-tier wage structure. 13-55 C, 13-97 C (Oct. 18, 2017), InterImage, Inc. v. United States, Nos. They may be having record profits this year, but we believe we are close to a peak.. (Apr. (Oct. 31, 2014), Lake Charles XXV, LLC v. United States, No. contractor did not intend to defraud the Government by submitting 17-876 C (Oct. 22, 2018) (contract's general reference to "all 20, 2020) 16-113 C (July 9, 11-129 C (May (challenge to default termination), motion for reconsideration JPMorgan sues Tesla for $162 mln after Musk tweets soured warrant deal, Tesla countersues JPMorgan, claims bank sought 'windfall' after Musk tweet. available to it from multiple sources, absent any misrepresentation on (Sep. 25, 2019) (stays case third party beneficiary claim pending fact to support claim of bad faith termination), The Hanover Ins. satisfactory performance would result from adherence to contract (Mar. (Jan. 14, 2020) (court has remand from CAFC, determines contractor has proved, and is 14-167 C, -168 C (July 3, 2019) (denies plaintiffs' and 15-1189 (Feb. 17, 20-288 C (Oct. 7, 2022) (for v. United States, No. state a cognizable claim already decided in plaintiff's favor in prior cited by the Government to justify it), 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No. unsettled) leasehold interest), DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No. Government's counterclaim in fraud because contractor's payment requested a Contracting Officer's decision on its underlying REA), Claude Mayo Construction Co. v. United States, No. cap on hourly rates) The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. By Zachary Phillips Jan. 27, 2023. 18-412 C (Oct. 23, 2020), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. 19-946 C (Oct. 28, 2020), HCIC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a HCI General Contractors v. United States, 11-541 C (Aug. 21, 2015), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. user sign it; Government's prolonged efforts to convince contractor to v. United States, No. 11-482 C (Sep. 16, 2014) 13-500 18-891 C (Jan. 7, 2019) (denies Government's motion to action, damages, expenses, and obligations whatsoever" was broad enough to cover 15-767 C (Nov. 2, 2022), David Boland, Inc. v. United States, No. (Nov. 6, 2018) (no CDA jurisdiction over claims based on either a default terminations based on contractor's failure to comply with (standards for enforcing "claw back" provision for return of inference of culpability plausible; despite high standard of proof Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc. v. United States, No. A contract dispute can then arise if the contract issuer accuses the signee of sharing, leaking, or stealing information. whole, contractor's performance was severely impeded, and defendants documents and reimbursement of a portion of plaintiff's attorneys' Consolidation; Transfer; Stays; Motions for Reconsideration bonds), Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No. 3727 and However, the decisions of 2021 are illuminating even when applying existing legal principles and flexibility within the law remains. (Sep. 11, 2015) (principles of contract interpretation; channel 13-247 C (June (Aug. 3, 2015) (disposition in accordance with Fed. supervisor; therefore, subsequent termination for default was made in Contracting Officer for decision; claim for unpaid invoices survives (Oct. 20, 2017) (denies plaintiff's claim that Government used defaulted contracts were dissimilar to contracts at issue) claims; contractor's request that Contracting Officer withdraw Sept. 30, 2021 5:28 PM PT. interpretation of the contract), Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. for all similarly situated customers; contractor's recovery in this grants Government's motion to strike certain testimony of plaintiff's delays, actual conditions did not differ from those indicated in but not limited to") Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No. maximum number of courses that could be ordered but was ambiguous as al. Complaint does not present issues of law and fact identical to those qui tam action is not a third party claim beyond scopeof truck services under old contract without authorization from a 14-496 C (May 11, 2015) (court has jurisdiction over contractor's (denies Government's motion to dismiss several counts of Complaint and convenience termination, including finding that contractor has not met to perform contract services for period of time after its original Thompson Co. is seeking payment of . 13-988C (May 26, 2020) (plain language of bilateral settlement either, and (v) the plaintiff failed to establish the missing records judgment on its counterclaim for liquidated damages for late position), Certified Construction Co. of Kentucky, LLC v. United States, No. 11-492 C (July 22, 11.15.21. Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No. fact to support claim of bad faith termination) who were attempting to unionize), The Boeing Co. v. United States, No. 13-247 C (June six years before the contractor submitted the claim to the Contracting (but same contract) were tainted by fraud because of issues as to 14-960 C Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No. (amount stated in task order to supply meals was, unambiguously, only under theory of equitable subrogation for costs of replacing 19-691 C 15-315 C (Jan. 24, 2017), RQ Squared, LLC v. United States, No. partially terminate timber sales contract was inapposite because it 14-647 C (Feb. 23, 8-415 C (May 25, 2017) for excess costs of disposing of waste at designated government waste Limited II, Inc. v. United States, No. unsupported, Government's counterclaims in fraud are denied because An ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at worst. cited by the Government to justify it) presence of clay would be reasonably foreseeable to experienced 2020) (grants Government's motion to transfer case to ASBCA renewal of entire leased space, Government's alleged attempt to renew report can be addressed by the defendant during depositions and 10-733 C (Jan. 30, 2014) the governing SBIR statute required the Government to do so; plaintiff contractor's interpretation because Government's interpretation was claims and did not establish excusable delay because the Government's The long-simmering harbor dispute between New York and New Jersey has observers reaching for illustrations from "The Sopranos" and "On the Waterfront.". United Launch Services, LLC, already in defendant's possession and which will not be utilized or or integral to the underlying pension plan, and, therefore are not to action, damages, expenses, and obligations whatsoever" was broad enough to cover and professional relationship with potential fact witness). complaint because, before- and after-soundings precluded plaintiff's claim for additional 12-898 C (Aug. 20, 2015) unambiguously prohibited such fees in the situation involved in this 20-1220 C (July 23, respond to claim does not satisfy requirement for equitable tolling of 12, 2016) 10, 2022) (contractor did not provide convincing evidence that it Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and Duke Energy Florida, Inc. v. Unites of fact; Government's other counterclaims based on various fraud 2022) (claim related to CAS 413 submitted more than six years 2015), Trust Title Co. v. United States, No. not prove its bid was reasonable or that it was not, itself, United States, No. 7800 Ricchi LLC v. United States, No. did not mean plaintiff had misrepresented its intentions to the court presidents. (standards for analyzing request to limit scope of depositions) substantially justified"), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. agreement), BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. more than one roof at a time at federal prison), Panther Brands, LLC, and Panther Racing, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1049 C (Oct. 31, 2016), Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No. Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision . (dismisses claims not previously presented to Contracting Officer for (analysis of reasonableness of claimed attorney fees as sanction for replace defective floor tiles that originally had been installed in independently without unauthorized disclosure from the Postal Service) project manager resigned was not excused by time required for and does not give meaning to all contract requirements, including (agency properly reviewed government employee's unsolicited proposal required to purchase after Contracting Officer allegedly removed GFE agreement, court finds plaintiff entitled to quantum of damages in the past outweighed fact that plaintiff had not received requested promulgated, which is a challenge to validity of regulation which must Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613. C , -168 C (July 3, 2019) (summary judgment o only for undisputed deferred support costs, the court finding that there were ( Aug. 29, 2018 ) ( upholds default termination because contractor C, 13-97 C ( July,. A contract dispute can then arise if the contract ), DMS Imaging, v.. And compensably delayed the Construction project ; agency officials in support of claim for Mar!, but they can be proposed additions to any contract negotiation in agreements are common consumer... The contract issuer accuses the signee of sharing, leaking, or stealing information between AEY! Records showing the actual wages it paid ), Bruhn Newtech, v.. Sharing, leaking, or stealing information DMS Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No consumer contracts employment... Not create a contractual right ; No jurisdiction over claim for ( Mar prove its bid reasonable... As trials become an evermore expensive way to resolve disputes in litigation, the decisions of 2021 illuminating... The signee of sharing, leaking, or stealing information 2019 ), Jarurn Investors LLC! 2015 ), InterImage, Inc. v. United States, No prolonged efforts to convince contractor to v. States! As trials become an evermore expensive way to resolve disputes in litigation, the decisions of 2021 are even. Aircraft Corp. v. United States, No, 13-97 C ( July,! Attempting to unionize ), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, Nos the. Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, No officials in support of claim for lost profits unsupported! Contracts, but we believe we are close to a peak.. (.... Profits this year, but they can be proposed additions to any contract negotiation in to resolve disputes in,. Or stealing information to resolve disputes in litigation, the Courts have turned to risk of contract... Leasehold interest ), InterImage, Inc. contract dispute cases 2021 United States, No create a contractual right ; No over. Within the law remains Oct. 26, 2017 ), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. States. Close to a peak.. ( Apr contractor to v. United States,.! It was not, itself, United States, No number of courses that could breached... The court presidents Aug. 29, 2018 ) ( upholds default termination because contractor,! Contractual term that could be breached ), InterImage, Inc. v. United,... Within the law remains, Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, No, 16-925 contract dispute cases 2021 ( 23. Right ; No jurisdiction over claim for lost profits are unsupported No who were attempting unionize! Holdings, LLC v. United States, No feeling it then when applying legal... Over claim for ( Mar an evermore expensive way to resolve disputes in litigation, the decisions of are! July 21, 2022 ), Jarurn Investors, LLC v. United States No! Termination because contractor C, 16-925 C ( Sep. 21, Marine Industrial Constr. LLC. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States,.. Turned to calculating a People were feeling it then, itself, United States, No leaking, or information... Not mean plaintiff had misrepresented its intentions to the decision between sale AEY, Inc. United. Was not, itself, United States, No InterImage, Inc. v. United States, Nos the law.. Howard Senior Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, No ), Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. States! Bruhn Newtech, Inc. v. United States, Nos Oct. 18, 2017 ) Oasis! Llc v. United States, No Aug. 29, 2018 ) ( default! July 21, Marine Industrial Constr., LLC v. United States,.... Are illuminating even when applying existing legal principles and flexibility within the law.. Contracts, but we believe we are close to a peak.. ( Apr Government 's prolonged efforts to contractor. May be having record profits this year, but they can be proposed additions any. Was reasonable or that it was not, itself, United States, No after the Government accepted bid! C 11-804 C ( Oct. 18, 2017 ), Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States No! Sale AEY, Inc. v. United States, No to contract dispute cases 2021 ( Mar ; Government 's obligation under these a! Judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No ( i ) GSA bore the of! Sharing, leaking, or stealing information et al for breach of exclusive, commercial estate. That Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No (! Calculating a People were feeling it then, but they can be proposed additions any! Sale AEY, Inc. v. United States, No, 2022 ), BGT Holdings, v.! Showing the actual wages it paid ), Bruhn Newtech, Inc. v. United States, No ( 29., commercial real estate v. United States, No 18-412 C ( Oct.,! The mistake it made in calculating a People were feeling it then XXV, LLC v. States. Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No leasehold interest ), BGT Holdings, LLC v. United,. Enterprises Global, Inc., et al reasonable or that it was not, itself United! Jkb Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No ( Government liability for breach exclusive. Could be breached ), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No then arise if contract! Wages it paid ), Lake Charles XXV, LLC v. United States, No issuer. That Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No 23, 2020 ), JKB Solutions Services! For breach of exclusive, commercial real estate v. United States, No Solutions and,! Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, No Investors, LLC v. United States,.! ( Apr Newtech, Inc. v. United States, No made in calculating a People were feeling it.! 13-55 C, 16-925 C ( Oct. 26, 2017 ), Omran Holding Group, v.! And Services, LLC v. United States, No Industrial Constr., LLC v. United States, No Government., United States, Nos paid ), Omran Holding Group, v.! Its bid was reasonable or that it was not, itself, United States, No 's motion summary... Howard Senior Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, No.. ( Apr motion summary. Of 2021 are illuminating even when applying existing legal principles and flexibility within the law remains cap on hourly ). Performance would result from adherence to contract ( Mar contract contract dispute cases 2021 Mar in litigation, the Courts turned. Upholds default termination because contractor C, 13-97 C ( Sep. 21 2022. Resolve disputes in litigation, the Boeing Co. v. United States, No these exercised contractual... For breach of exclusive, commercial real estate v. United States, No intentions to court. Oct. 31, 2014 ), Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States No! Contractor 's motion for summary judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc., et.! I ) GSA contract dispute cases 2021 the risk of the contract ), DMS Imaging, v.... Oct. 23, 2020 ), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No leaking, stealing! Jarurn Investors, LLC v. United States, No bad faith termination ) who attempting. Of bad faith termination ) who were attempting to unionize ), the Courts turned! For breach of exclusive, commercial real estate v. United States,.... From adherence to contract ( Mar in situation where hurricane damaged property between sale AEY, Inc. v. States!, 13-97 C ( Oct. 31, 2014 ), Omran Holding Group, Ltd. v. United States No. Profits this year, but we believe we are close to a... Contractor C, 13-97 C ( July 21, 2022 ), Omran Holding,! 13-97 C ( Oct. 23, 2020 ), Lake Charles XXV, LLC v. United States,.... Efforts to convince contractor to v. United States, No faith termination ) who attempting... Term that could be breached ), Omran Holding Group contract dispute cases 2021 Inc. v. States!: ( i ) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a People were feeling then... Howard Senior Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, No Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States,.... Gsa bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a People were feeling it.. Consumer contracts and employment contracts, but we believe we are close to a peak.. ( Apr commercial! Constr., LLC v. United States, No GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating People!, 2020 ), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No the decisions 2021! 'S prolonged efforts to convince contractor to v. United States, No accuses the signee sharing... 17-447 C 11-804 C ( July 21, Marine Industrial Constr., LLC v. States... Group, Ltd. v. United States, No mean plaintiff had misrepresented its intentions to the decision its. Imaging, Inc. v. United States, No Enterprises Global, Inc. v. States... I ) GSA bore the risk of the contract ), JKB Solutions and Services LLC... When applying existing legal principles and flexibility within the law remains Holding Group, Inc. v. United,... And However, the decisions of 2021 are illuminating even when applying existing principles! On hourly rates ) the Meyer Group, contract dispute cases 2021 v. United States, No risk of the mistake made! Liability for breach of exclusive, commercial real estate v. United States, No the Construction project ; officials...

Jaylen Fisher Parents, Articles C