Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

Since 2001 the company has provided professional training, curriculum development, and technical assistance to schools, teachers, and administrators to schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA funds its program directly through BIA contracts with a provider and indirectly through distribution of funds under the No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301, to BIA schools, which contract with a provider. The company sought payment from the BIA for specific time periods. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dismissed, finding that it did not have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601, because the company failed to establish that it had a contract with the government for the unpaid services. The Federal Circuit vacated, in part, dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Failure to establish the existence of a contract meant that the company failed to state an element of its claim, not that the court lacked jurisdiction. Questions of fact concerning some of the claimed contracts remain unresolved. View "Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, which owned a nuclear power plant, entered into the standard U.S. Department of Energy contract, under which DOE agreed to collect spent nuclear fuel (SNF) no later than 1998. DOE never began collecting SNF and has breached contracts nationwide. Massachusetts restructured the electric utility industry and, in 1999, the plant sold for $80 million; buyer agreed to accept decommissioning responsibilities for $428 million. The district court awarded $40 million for the portion of the decommissioning fund corresponding to projected post-decommissioning SNF-related costs attributable to DOE’s continuing breach. The court awarded the buyer $4 million in mitigation damages, including direct and overhead costs for new spent fuel racks and fees paid to the NRC. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded. Plaintiff cannot recover damages under a diminution-of-value theory in a partial breach setting. The sale of assets does not alter the principle that when the breaching party has not repudiated and is still expected to perform, anticipated damages are not recoverable until incurred. A non-breaching party may recover from the government indirect overhead costs associated with mitigation and the costs of financing those activities. View "Boston Edison Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2000, the Army awarded SDC a $430,000 contract. A dispute arose regarding specifications. In 2001, SDC requested termination for convenience. In 2004, the CO terminated the contract and SDC submitted a settlement proposal for $789,058. The officer awarded $403,563 in 2005. Under the Contract Disputes Act, a contractor may appeal to a board of contract appeals within 90 days or to the Court of Federal Claims within 12 months, 31 U.S.C. 606, 609. SDC filed in court, seeking, $19,316 in costs, and, for the first time, seeking equitable adjustments of $1.7 million: $397,000 for defective specifications; $500,000 for alleged breach of covenants of fair dealing and cooperation; and $750,000 for alleged bad faith. After a stipulated dismissal, SDC took no further action. In 2008, SDC submitted new claims: $19,316 in termination costs, a category previously disallowed, and $7 million in equitable adjustments. The CO denied termination costs as already addressed in the 2005 decision. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The termination costs claim should have been presented to the Board within 90 days of receipt of the decision. Equitable adjustment claims were submitted outside the six-year statute of limitations, 41 U.S.C. 605(a). View "Systems Dev. Corp. c. McHugh" on Justia Law

A veteran was employed by the Navy. Terminated in 1994, he filed an EEOC complaint. In a 1995 settlement agreement, the Navy agreed to remove from the Official Personnel Folder adverse performance evaluations; to remove records of disciplinary action; and to document that he had resigned for personal reasons. In 1996, plaintiff discovered that the Navy had not complied and filed another complaint. In a 1996 agreement, the Navy agreed to employ plaintiff and to document that he had resigned in 1994. In 1998 plaintiff was accused of stealing and suspended. He filed a third EEOC complaint, then was accused of threatening a crew member. After being notified of his proposed removal, plaintiff resigned. Under a 2001 settlement, the Navy agreed to pay plaintiff $1,000, to expunge the suspension, and to provide a neutral reference. Records obtained in 2006 indicated that the Navy had not documented that he resigned for personal reasons. In 2008, he filed suit. The district court dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, breach of contract claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1). The Federal Circuit reversed. The agreements can fairly be interpreted as mandating payment of money damages for breach by the government, subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction. The claims were not time-barred because plaintiff was entitled to benefit of the accrual suspension rule. View "Holmes v. United States" on Justia Law

The 2008 Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-3, unilaterally terminated a number of medical equipment and supplies contracts that had been made previously with individual providers by the government and purported to deny an "independent" cause of action or right to administrative or judicial review with regard to the terminations The court of claims dismissed a suit by plaintiff, whose contracts were terminated. The Federal Circuit reversed, noting several possible interpretations of the peculiar wording of the provision. The Act not withdraw traditional contract jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C 1491(a)(1) and plaintiff stated a claim. View "Cardiosom, L.L.C. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, the company entered into contracts with the government for roof repairs of two government buildings. Due to delays the projects were not completed and accepted by the government until September and October 2005. At the time, Federal Acquisition Regulations required that a performance report be prepared for each construction contract for $550,000 or more, 48 C.F.R. § 36.201. The company received negative interim performance evaluations from the resident engineer for both projects in February, 2004. In March, 2006, the resident engineer issued proposed negative final performance evaluations for both projects. The company protested the proposed evaluations, asserting that subcontractors and other problems, beyond its control, caused the delays. In final performance evaluations, the engineer assigned an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory and assigned unsatisfactory ratings for each project in 15 individual categories. The contracting officer issued a final decision that the unsatisfactory performance appraisal was justified. The Claims Court rejected the company's suit. The Federal Circuit affirmed. A contractor is responsible for the unexcused performance failures of its subcontractors and the complaint did not allege facts that would excuse the delays. View "Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1983, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, authorizing contracts with nuclear plant utilities, generators of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HWL) under which the gVovernment would accept and dispose of nuclear waste in return for the generators paying into a Nuclear Waste Fund, 42 U.S.C. 10131. In 1983, the Department of Energy entered into the standard contract with plaintiff to accept SNF and HLW. In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to specify that the repository would be in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The government has yet to accept spent fuel. The current estimate is that the government will not begin accepting waste until 2020, if at all. In 2001, plaintiff began constructing dry storage facilities to provide on-site storage for SNF rather than to continue using an outside company (ISFSI project). The Court of Federal Claims awarded $142,394,294 for expenses due to DOE’s breach; 23,657,791 was attributable to indirect overhead costs associated with the ISFSI project. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Breach of the standard contract caused plaintiff to build, staff, and maintain an entirely new facility; the ISFSI facilities had not existed prior to the breach and were necessitated by the breach. View "So. CA Edison Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

A contractor, renovating military housing, obtained a performance bond under the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 3131 (b)) and abandoned the project after completing 12 percent of the work. The government had paid 40 percent of the contract price. The surety contracted for completion, but the second contractor discovered code violations and incurred penalties for late completion. Costs were reimbursed by the surety, which filed suit under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491. The Federal Circuit held that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction. The court previously held that the Claims Court has jurisdiction under the Act over sureties' claims based on a theory of equitable subrogation; this case does not involve equitable subrogation because the government made payments at issue before receiving notice of the contractor's default. The waiver of sovereign immunity under the Act does not extend to impairment of suretyship claims apart from the theory of equitable subrogation. The Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601, applies to a surety's claim against the government arising from a takeover agreement between the government and surety for completion of a bonded contract following the principal obligor’s default; the surety failed to satisfy CDA jurisdictional prerequisites. View "Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The United States Army Corps of Engineers awarded the company a contract for construction of a government hospital at Fort Benning. Two rival bidders each filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office, which recommended that the contract be re-procured without the company's participation. The GAO found organizational conflict of interest, focusing on the potential for access to nonpublic information and had concluding that the company had access to special knowledge of the Army's requirements that would give unfair advantage. The Army announced that it would follow the GAO recommendation and terminated the contract. The Court of Claims ordered reinstatement and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Claims Court applied the correct standard of review in concluding that the termination was unreasonable. Th GAO identified no facts to indicated that the company actually had access to specific, sensitive information. View "Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Energy breached its agreement to accept spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power utilities, including plaintiff, a Wisconsin power cooperative, no longer in operation. Plaintiff maintains 38 metric tons of spent uranium on its property. Had DOE not breached the agreement, the material would have been removed in 2006. Plaintiff joined a consortium of 11 utilities to develop a private repository. The district court awarded about $37.6 million: $16.6 million for maintaining the fuel on-site from 1998 to 2006, $12 million for investment in the consortium, and $6.1 million for various overhead costs associated with mitigation. The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The claims court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to damages for the entire period, 1999-2006; properly awarded overhead; properly offset the consortium costs; but should have limited the award with respect to the consortium to expenses incurred for mitigation. View "Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States" on Justia Law