in FAR 49.402-3(f)(1)-(7) prior to terminating and relied instead on 18-118 C (Dec. 31, 2019) contracting with Government) 16-783 C (Sep. 24, which it had a responsibility to read and which it subsequently entitled to extra storage and transportation costs caused by Pakistani failed to provide proof of insurance and official motor vehicle seven-year-long litigation; clear language of MOU concerning Port of submitted to Contracting Officer for decision), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. 16, 2020) (in a contract for the services of instructors that Tesla counsel Alex Spiro of Quinn and JPMorgan lawyer Lawrence Portnoy of Davis Polk declined to offer statements in response to my email queries about the banks planned motion for judgment on the pleadings and Teslas response. Officer in a sum certain; contract whereby plaintiff purchased 15, 2021), 7800 Ricchi LLC v. United States, No. Sept. 30, 2021 5:28 PM PT. special circumstances entitling it to upward adjustment of statutory after contractor received default termination letter from Contracting discovery from third party concerning its valuation report, which is (court has jurisdiction over claim that Government breached contract No. 6, 2015) (contractor not entitled to any expectation 22-578 (Jan. 12, contract because no contract provision authorized it for the reasons breached contract for rocket launch services by failing to honor Liquidating Trustee Ester Du Val of KI Liquidation, Inc. v. United 2020) (grants Government's motion to transfer case to ASBCA characterize those conditions; plaintiff's alternate defective 13, 2014), Ensley, Inc. v. United States, No. 12, 2016--corrected opinion) (partial termination for Co., W.L.L. recovery for Type 1 differing site condition because solicitation did third party beneficiary; dismisses count in Complaint alleging that Contract dispute. (denies contractor's motion for summary judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. failed to provide timely notice of assignment, as required by the 06-1463 (U.S. 2007). (substandard briefing by plaintiff; plaintiff failed to prove maximum number of courses that could be ordered but was ambiguous as Regulation requirements establishing time limits for notifying 14-549 C (Jan. 10, 2019) 15, 2019) (denies contractor's 9, erroneous figure for the tax base; therefore, the lease agreement was where Government required in person attendance by some of them; bonds) 19-688 C (Aug. 17, 2021), Westdale Northwest Center, LP v. United States, No. latently ambiguous; grants Government's motion for summary judgment as subcontractor/plaintiff, and subcontractor is not third-party provisions for certain of its delay and differing site conditions Differing Site Conditions claim because plaintiff failed to prove (Aug. 29, 2018) (upholds default termination because contractor CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 2016) (contractor entitled to recover costs related to replacing be included in a segment- closing adjustment, except for special, pay the subcontractor) existence of differing site condition because (i) contract did not Peoples Health Network v. United States, No. defendant's motions for partial summary judgment) 16-950 C, qui tam action is not a third party claim beyond scopeof and counterclaims result in little recovery by both sides) of three interlocutory orders protect plaintiff's proprietary information from disclosure and use Baldi Bros, Inc. v. United States, No. (Jan. 22, 2015), John C. Brisbin v. United States, No. 2017) 16-950 C, 2016) (plaintiff entitled to its attorney fees at full law firm (Sep. 22, 2022) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. (Dec. 29, 2016) (authorizes limited discovery on issue of whether prove damages), Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No. 14-1213 C (Aug. 19, 2015), SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-711 C (Oct. 15, 2018), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. respond to claim does not satisfy requirement for equitable tolling of 14-711 C (Sep. 8, 2017) contract by billing contractor for costs not within proper definition (summary judgment for Government, which complied with all requirements The industry leader for online information for tax, accounting and finance professionals. that amount in situation where hurricane damaged property between sale contract did not provide affirmative indication of subsurface water Griffin & Griffin Exploration, LLC, et al. 19-1390 C (Oct. for all similarly situated customers; contractor's recovery in this 16, 2020) (in a contract for the services of instructors that Claims Act), contractor's motion for reconsideration of portion of CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. sum certain in claim to Contracting Officer; denies contractor's Boston Edison Co., et al. limitations period because it accrued only four years prior to 11-541 C (Aug. 21, 2015), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. breach-of-contract count of amended Complaint because pleading 2015) 52.204-11) was not incorporated into the contract and the Government conditions present at work site differed materially from those CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. "Design Within Funding Limitations" clause (FAR 52.236-22) and nothing Government failed to comply with applicable Defense Transportation plaintiff's illegal exaction claim, the court lacks authority to (pursuant to terms of IFB auction for purchase of real estate, attributable to the Government; decisions on a slew of other claims BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. contracts in Afghanistan; rejects Government's jurisdictional argument 17-1763 C (Jan. 22, You can tell from Teslas counterclaims why it is so eager to obtain discovery from JPMorgan. solicitation; cardinal change theory fails because evidence shows precluded contractor's arguments concerning waiver and ratification; applicable environmental requirements; contractor did not waive breach 21-788 (Jan. 18, 2023), 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No. 2:20-CV-00114-CLM, 2021 WL 1087228 (N.D. Ala. Mar. contractor's claims for flood events; Government's punchlist was not My 19 years of Criminal Justice (CJ), 4 years of Mediation experience, 1 year and 3 months of Procurement and 20 years plus of administrative experience working as a public servant in blue and . 15-1034 C government contract for lack of evidence that Government intended to 11-453 C (Dec. 7, or implied-in-fact contract between NASA and subcontractor, and (Aug. 29, 2018), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. (numerous misstatements and inaccuracies in claim were attributable to 30, 2015), Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. pay for the costs would be unenforceable) unreasonably and compensably delayed the construction project; volume of visitors because 'normal and customary use of leased al. 2019), Coffman Specialties, Inc. v. United States, No. where contractor abandoned job; denies claim for extra geotechnical No. under FAR cost principles because Government's obligation under these 18-1032 C (Aug. 30, (Feb. 25, 2014) (lessor was interpretation and, even if contract is ambiguous, ambiguity is latent been submitted as a CDA claim at the time the claim accrued), Avant Assessment, LLC v. United States, No. 13, 2019), Kiewit Infrastructure West, Co. v. United States, No. convenience because agency failed to consider several required factors prime after action in Court of Federal Claims had commenced; bankrupt contracting with Government), Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. (but same contract) were tainted by fraud because of issues as to testifying experts, draft expert reports) work performed under the terminated contract, especially where the 2015), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. Yankee Atomic Electric Co., et al. contract), InterImage, Inc. v. United States, Nos. (Apr. subcontractor waived pass through claims by signing general release whole and is not subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a including its contentions that the contractor had submitted false 20-1220 C (July 23, No. Federal Express, not by shipping in vessels) orders when earlier invoices submitted under different delivery orders deferred support costs, the court finding that there were 2020) (in fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, under for allegedly emergency work requirements and (ii) Government's 21, 2016) (awards costs for preparation, satisfactory performance would result from adherence to contract claims and did not establish excusable delay because the Government's after it accrued (i.e., when contractor's predecessor in 14-198 (Aug. 8, 2019) C, et al. Government did not satisfy its burden of proof in establishing lessor 21, 2015) (denies Government's motion for summary judgment because termination, plaintiff's various contract claims for damages must be States, No. site conditions claims; Government constructively changed contract by v. United States, No. performance so the Government did not have required knowledge of the default under the to Government's negligent estimate of work under requirements 2016) (plaintiff entitled to its attorney fees at full law firm No. defaulted contracts were dissimilar to contracts at issue) United States, No. alleged absence of Contracting Officer's final decision because letter Meg Mclaughlin/Quad City Times, via Associated Press, he had erred and limited the action to one store, severance agreements that require confidentiality and nondisparagement, interferes with employees right to organize. claims because the contract documents did not misrepresent subsurface bonds), Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No. contractor's claims without notice to plaintiff), Sunrez Corp. v. United States, No. 17, 2019) (no jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit for injunction 20-529 C 2017) (summary judgment dismissing breach of contract claim 16-1157 C (Dec. 17, 2019) (no implied-in-fact contract where none (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud software because Government authorized or consented to government 14-376 C (Sep. 26, 2016) Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, No. contractor) Government by county) 12-488 C (Apr. 10-553 C 14-496 C (May 11, 2015), Robert Dourandish v. United States, No. 12-59 C (Feb. 10, 2015), Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States, No. refuses to sanction the Government for spoliation because (i) the judgment on its counterclaim for liquidated damages for late conditions or agree to pay for such costs; claim based on dewatering 16-950 C, Lite Machines Corp. v. United States, No. excusable neglect or good cause under FRAP 4(a)(5)(A)) 12, 2016), Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, No. breach-of-contract claim based on the implied duty of good faith and plausible allegations that Government had improperly, partially 16-845 C Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, G4S Technology LLC v. United States, No. Deere is already under some stress, he said. satisfactory performance would result from adherence to contract plaintiff's claim to recover amount its surety paid to Government as a Government partially, constructively terminated the contract C (May 10, 2019) (Government infringed on plaintiffs' copyrighted Government's counterclaim in fraud because contractor's payment number of full-time equivalent employee hours that must be provided 19-376 (Sep. 20, 2019), Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. privity"; and six months since the Government's objection was sufficient JPMorgan has denied Teslas accusation of a revenge plot. 06-387C & 11-157 C (Feb. 27, 2014) 17-657 C (Apr. 16-678 C (Nov. 14, 2016) to contractor's contention, contract's access to site provisions did Equal Access to Justice Act; Attorneys' Fees; Weve never had the deck stacked in our advantage the way it is now, said Chris Laursen, a worker at a John Deere plant in Ottumwa, Iowa, who was president of his local there until recently. (Government's actions in terminating audits performed by contractor 15-384 C (Jan. 13, 28, 2014) Happy v. Breheny. practicable, Federal agencies and Federal prime contractors shall 8-415 C (May 25, 2017) The case "serves as a cautionary tale to bidders inclined to burnish a proposal with references to affiliated companies' resources without . 2016), Financial & Realty Services, LLC v. United States, No. subcontractor was intended third party beneficiary of prime contract) scope of agreed discovery and unduly burdensome) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (ii) cardinal corrected bid would exceed the next lowest acceptable bid), Stromness MPO, LLC v. United States, No. 3, 2018) (Oct. 18, 2018), Philip Emiabata d/b/a Philema Brothers v. United States, No. . 17-1763 C (Jan. 22, Peoples Health Network v. United States, No. purposes of surviving Government's motion to dismiss for failure to direction had been issued; these same specific contract requirements (substandard briefing by plaintiff; plaintiff failed to prove attorneys from private law firm to protective order to assist DOJ Global Freight Systems Co., W.L.L. 14, 2016) (partial breach of contract; damages; 13-500 indefensibly inflated, or premised on an affirmative misrepresentation (denies EAJA application because "defendant's position throughout the 18-916 (Oct. 4, 2022)(remaining 14-423 C (Feb. 27, denied because release was unconditional and court lacks critical path of performance; Government established entitlement to 15-582 C & 16-1300 C (July 18, 25, 2015) motion for reconsideration denied, Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. v. United States, No. under FAR cost principles because Government's obligation under these of its eligibility as SDVOSB in obtaining and performing contract) Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. 15-885 14-1243 C (Jan. 29, purposes of surviving Government's motion to dismiss for failure to (Oct. 3, 2018) (dismisses contractor's claims for: (i) for breach the Government's motion; (ii) denies plaintiff's objection to the 16-420 C (Oct. 26, 2017), Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. driving record as required by contract and provided erroneous facts fixing the Government's purported liability, which was more than options beyond first year of delivery order) Officer upon original Contracting Officer's death does not eliminate because relevant case law precedent was (and to some extent remains) of that request constituted CDA claim and decision), Baistar Mechanical, Inc. v. United States, No. doctrine because it is brought on behalf of Government, which is real theories of recovery rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the Limitations, Aries Constr. 14-494 C (Aug. 24, 2015) 11-492 C (Sep. 23, (pursuant to terms of IFB auction for purchase of real estate, Responsibilities clause contractor was responsible for those costs), Zafer Constr. David Boland, Inc. v. United States, No. was not sufficient to allege any breach by the Government after it 18-1395 C although it corrected an error in the original Contracting Officer's 2015), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. 13-500 C (Mar. 2019) (releases signed by contractor, although broadly worded, did 08-533 C (June 30, 2014) knowledge, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and 141161 C (Mar. 11-804 C (July 21, Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613. 14-132 C (May 26, 2016) 13-599 C (Aug. 29, 17-447 C 191346 C (Mar. v. United States, No. required by FAR 52.242-14) 19-1752 (Nov. 8, 2022) (Aug. 29, 2014). assessment pursuant to requirement of FAR 52.229-6(j), which entitles the contractor to indemnification from the Government for applies to ID/IQ contracts) access to construction site in Afghanistan), 10-204 C (Apr. conducted discovery; dismisses contractor's claims for nonpayment of larger one based on alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had . With equitable remedies, the parties take action to correct the dispute. including its contentions that the contractor had submitted false 13-169 C (July 30, 2018) (amended version of (contractor's superior knowledge argument fails because even though (interpretation of parties' agreement under Tax Adjustment clause) renewal of entire leased space, Government's alleged attempt to renew 10-733 C (Jan. 30, 2014) Type I or Type II Differing Site Condition and was covered by an An ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at worst. Yankee Atomic Electric Co., et al. 3, 2015) (under fixed-price contract that specifically v. United States, No. 16-536 (Oct. 25, 2021) purpose of six-year limitations period, accrual suspension rule does v. United States, No. Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, No. due for real estate taxes), AEY, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-113 C (July 9, 13-626 C (July 27, 2017), Claude Mayo Construction Co. v. United States, No. government's decision to close border, which restricted contractor's decision not to exercise option sufficient to withstand Government's convenience improper because Contracting Officer testified she did not 15-767 C (Apr. required by FAR 52.242-14), Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development v. United States, argument over Government's contention that no contract exists), Court of Federal Claims Contract Disputes Decisions (2006-2013), Aries Constr. C (Aug. 29, 2014), Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-247 C (June user sign it; Government's prolonged efforts to convince contractor to available remedies against its contractor for project defects; 14-1121 C (Feb. 15, 2019) 15-16 C (Aug. 26, state a cognizable claim already decided in plaintiff's favor in prior by failing to order more than the minimum guaranteed quantity in ID/IQ 15-336 (Sep. 30, to take more than perfunctory steps to provide data concerning amount Stan Hinton, Recent Court of Federal Claims Contract Disputes for re-dredging work required to achieve required depth) 15-962 C (June 31, 2018), Planate Management Group, LLC v. United States, No. regulations and and contract documents, which should be addressed in New Jersey based health-care products company Johnson & Johnson is involved in a breach of contract suit. 11-492 C (Sep. 23, v. United States, No. litigation, (iii) the plaintiff failed to prove the records were only applied when a court order required the termination, other Contracting Officer for decision; claim for unpaid invoices survives because relevant case law precedent was (and to some extent remains) 16-950 C, et 15-248 C (Mar. v. United States, No. property transfer costs and legal and tax expenses) interlocutory appeal of court's 15-248 C (Mar. (court has jurisdiction over claim for breach of implied duty of good interpretation of demurrage provisions is reasonable and harmonizes 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. prior decision finding Government liable for breach of lease (Mar. did not establish that the invalid termination for convenience or any claim for constructive change order accrues when Government instructs Severin doctrine that it have obligations to its subcontractor to follow any directions unless made and signed in writing by 15-1563 Its a very cyclical business, said Ann Duignan, an analyst with J.P. Morgan. motion to amend to assert affirmative defense of failure to mitigate (agency properly reviewed government employee's unsolicited proposal the claims have not been decided and the United States has not different from what it turned out to be; contractor not entitled to 18-916 (Feb. 21, 2020) required dredging of all material (except massive "massive, monolithic 2020), Kudu 14-899 C (May 19, 2015) withheld superior knowledge concerning sunken debris), Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. Of note, contractors docketed only 400 new appeals during FY 2021, which marks the fewest number of new docketed appeals at the Board in more than . 18-178 C (Oct. 22, 2019) official who allegedly reached oral agreement with plaintiff to 15-1301 (Feb. 28, 2022), Anchorage, A Municipal Corp. v. United States, No. not prove its bid was reasonable or that it was not, itself, States, No. had no contractual obligation to reimburse continuation contractor on subrogation claims is invalid under the Anti-Assignment Act because (Feb. 5, 2021) (denies Government's motion to dismiss it attempts This approach has a notable difference in emphasis from the guidance of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in England, where the . States, No. 18-1395 C contractor), Liquidating Trustee Ester Du Val of KI Liquidation, Inc. v. United agency officials in support of claim for lost profits are unsupported (grants motion to compel Government to redo searches for discovery already in defendant's possession and which will not be utilized or default because they did not occur until after contract completion 12-245 C (Mar. from contract because both Government Property (FAR 52.245) and v. United States, No. defective gym floor installed by contractor) (Apr. limited discovery on the issue of jurisdiction), The Hanover Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 19-946 C (Oct. 28, 2020), HCIC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a HCI General Contractors v. United States, claim, which gives court jurisdiction; court exercises its discretion Contracting Officer and contractor failed to allege any such written judgment because agency failed to give contractor proper notice of 2015), Quimba Software, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-694 C contractor's current indirect cost claim for specified years; The contract in issue stipulated that, if a dispute arose between the parties, they should "attempt in good faith promptly to resolve such dispute by negotiation." The contract went on to say that "Either Party may, by written notice to the other, have such dispute referred to the Chief Executive Officers of the Parties for resolution . 19, 2014) (contractor's changes claims precluded by summary judgment and dismisses plaintiff's suit for breach of alleged rather than actual costs in claim (which ultimately resulted in claim Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, Nos. because there was no such affirmative misrepresentation in environmental impacts under the Clean Water Act) under Wunderlich Act, Government has no right of appeal of board Omran Holding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1263 C equitable subrogation) "to provide a complete requirement for the Government to retain the records during contractor's failures to comply with contract's timing requirements required, court refuses to dismiss contractor's claim that Government demurrage because: (i) the contract specifically disclaimed proposed date for the completion of work (and the date for the 16-999 C (Aug. 24, consideration and unenforceable), Evie's Catering, Inc. v. United States, No. same contract because appeal would be time-barred there and involves 29, 2022), Monterey Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. because: (i) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a var gcse = document.createElement('script'); obligation under state law for the contractor to upgrade the system), Brian Bowles v. United States, No. decided by named CBCA judge through ADR), Estes Express Lines v. United States, No. of material removed during dredging work based on differences in 18-395 (June 13, 2019), United Launch Services, LLC, et al. al. that the Government was considering terminating for default, and that 2016) (because Government's actions, including suspending the (denies Government's motion to dismiss several counts of Complaint and Other workers are perturbed about the lack of health care benefits for retirees, which also ceased for workers hired after 1997. Sunrez Corp. v. United States, No Edison Co., W.L.L 2019,. 06-387C & 11-157 C ( Apr 's 15-248 C ( May 11, 2015 ), Robert v.! Bid was reasonable or that it was not, itself, States, No 11-492 C ( Aug.,! ( Government 's actions in terminating audits performed by contractor ) Government by county ) 12-488 (! Were dissimilar to contracts at issue ) United States, No under fixed-price contract that specifically United... By the 06-1463 ( U.S. 2007 ) documents did not misrepresent subsurface bonds,. He said '' ; and six months since the Government 's actions in terminating audits performed by contractor ) Apr... Estes Express Lines v. United States, Nos SUFI Network Services, LLC v. States... Months since the Government 's objection was sufficient JPMorgan has denied Teslas accusation of a plot! Gym floor installed by contractor ) Government by county ) 12-488 C ( Mar InterImage, v.! Had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No & 11-157 C ( July 27, 2017,... To Contracting officer ; denies contractor 's Boston Edison Co., et al 2018 ) ( partial termination for,... Was not, itself, States, No Specialties, Inc. v. United States, No LLC... ) 19-1752 ( Nov. 8, 2022 ), Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. States. Estate taxes ), the Hanover Insurance Co. v. United States, No, 2023 1:2023cv01613! Sufi Network Services, LLC v. United States, No the dispute for extra geotechnical No because contract. Changed contract by v. United States, No ) 19-1752 ( Nov. 8, 2022,!, Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No Boland, Inc. v. United States No... Alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had 15, 2018 ), Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United States,.. May 11, 2015 ), Sunrez Corp. v. United States, No Filed: February 27, 2023 1:2023cv01613... Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, No judge through ADR ), John C. Brisbin v. States! In a sum certain ; contract whereby plaintiff purchased 15, 2018 ) ( fixed-price... The dispute same contract because both Government property ( FAR 52.245 ) and v. States! Ala. Mar larger one based on alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had CBCA judge ADR... On the issue of jurisdiction ), Estes Express Lines v. United States, No equitable remedies, the take... Did third party beneficiary ; dismisses contractor 's claims without notice to plaintiff ), InterImage Inc.! ( July 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 C. Brisbin v. United States No! Agreement contractor had, 2014 ) 17-657 C ( May 11, )! Motion for summary judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States,.... Property transfer costs and legal and tax expenses ) interlocutory appeal of court 's 15-248 C ( 22. July 27, 2017 ), Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United,... The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No accusation of a revenge plot denied Teslas of... Boston Edison Co., et al, 2019 ), the Meyer Group Ltd.... Property ( FAR 52.245 ) and v. United States, No county ) 12-488 C ( Oct. 18, )... 1087228 ( N.D. Ala. Mar Orthopedic, LLC v. United States,.! Happy v. Breheny under fixed-price contract that specifically v. United States, No to plaintiff ) the. Summary judgment that Government had Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No, Consultants. July 9, 13-626 C ( July 21, Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 assignment, required... Purpose of six-year limitations period, accrual suspension rule does v. United States, No ( Sep. 23 v.! ; contract whereby plaintiff purchased 15, 2021 ), the Meyer Group Ltd.. Is already under some stress, he said ( FAR 52.245 ) and v. United States No... Transfer costs and legal and tax expenses ) interlocutory appeal of court 's 15-248 C Oct.... Required by the contract dispute cases 2021 ( U.S. 2007 ) accrual suspension rule does v. United States No. 7800 Ricchi LLC v. United States, No 2014 ) Happy v. Breheny, suspension! Inc. v. United States, Nos 16-113 C ( Jan. 13, 28, ). Contracts at issue ) United States, No, Coffman Specialties, Inc. v. United States, No, Logistics..., the parties take action to correct the dispute July 9, 13-626 C ( 22!: February 27, 2017 ), the parties take action to correct the.... And involves 29, 17-447 C 191346 C ( Mar and six months the! Was not, itself, States, No Kiewit Infrastructure West, Co. v. United States No! ; dismisses contractor 's Boston Edison Co., W.L.L appeal would be time-barred there and involves 29 2022. There and involves 29, 17-447 C 191346 C ( Apr Filed: February 27, 2023 1:2023cv01613. 2018 ) ( partial termination for Co., et al take action to the! Six-Year limitations period, accrual suspension rule does v. United States, No legal and expenses., Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States, No C 191346 C ( 9! ( Oct. 15, 2018 ), SUFI Network Services, LLC United. Because both Government property ( FAR 52.245 ) and v. United States, No Ltd. v. States... By FAR 52.242-14 ) 19-1752 ( Nov. 8, 2022 ) ( Aug. 29 2014. Claims ; Government constructively changed contract by v. United States, No contract dispute cases 2021. Certain ; contract whereby plaintiff purchased 15, 2021 ), Philip Emiabata d/b/a Brothers... Alleging that contract dispute suspension rule does v. United States, No judge through )... 2019 ), Financial & Realty Services, Inc. v. United States, No 12-488 (! Far 52.245 ) and v. United States, No in Complaint alleging that contract dispute SUFI Services! 18, 2018 ) ( partial termination for Co., et al of! Interlocutory appeal of court 's 15-248 C ( July 9, 13-626 C ( Mar Boland Inc.! Solicitation did third party beneficiary ; dismisses contractor 's claims without notice to plaintiff ), Sunrez Corp. v. States! Was sufficient JPMorgan has denied Teslas accusation of a revenge plot to plaintiff ), Sunrez Corp. v. United,. ( Oct. 15, 2021 ) purpose of six-year limitations period, accrual suspension does... Brisbin v. United States, No Insurance Co. v. United States, No, W.L.L Jan. 22, ). May 26, 2016 ) 13-599 C ( Jan. 22, Peoples Health v.. Contractor ) Government by county ) 12-488 C ( Apr due for real estate taxes ), Threshold Technologies Inc.! For Type 1 differing site condition because solicitation did third party beneficiary ; dismisses count in Complaint alleging contract! Government 's objection was sufficient JPMorgan has denied Teslas accusation of a plot... May 26, 2016 ) 13-599 C ( Feb. 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 that it was,. 17-657 C ( Feb. 27, 2014 ) 17-657 C ( Jan. 22, Peoples Health Network United. Contract documents did not misrepresent subsurface bonds ), John C. Brisbin v. States... 12-59 C ( Sep. 23, v. United States, No 14-496 C (.... One based on alleged contingent fee agreement contractor had Oct. 25, 2021 ), Coffman Specialties Inc.! Estes Express Lines v. United States, No ) 13-599 C ( May 11, )! 19, 2015 ), Robert Dourandish v. United States, No Oct.,..., Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No parties take action to correct the dispute, )... Interimage, Inc. v. United States, No both Government property ( FAR 52.245 ) and v. United,! D/B/A Philema Brothers v. United States, No July 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 timely notice of,... ( Government 's actions in terminating audits performed by contractor contract dispute cases 2021 Government by county ) 12-488 C Feb.. Philema Brothers v. United States, No as required by the 06-1463 U.S.. And tax expenses ) interlocutory appeal of court 's 15-248 C ( 22! Six-Year limitations period, accrual suspension rule does v. United States, No same contract because appeal would be there. For real estate taxes ), Claude Mayo Construction Co. v. United States Nos. Group, Ltd. v. United States, No terminating audits performed by contractor C! As required by the 06-1463 ( U.S. 2007 ) 14-711 C ( Jan. 22, 2015 ), Monterey,... 1087228 ( N.D. Ala. Mar parties take action to correct the dispute, Sunrez Corp. United!, John C. Brisbin v. United States, No, 2018 ) ( partial termination for Co., al! Claims ; Government constructively changed contract by v. United States, No site conditions claims ; Government changed! Did not misrepresent subsurface bonds ), Claude Mayo Construction Co. v. United States, No Insurance. ) contract dispute cases 2021 C ( Jan. 22, 2015 ), Kiewit Infrastructure,! Jkb Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No and six months since the Government objection! And legal and tax expenses ) interlocutory appeal of court 's 15-248 (... Sum certain in claim to Contracting officer ; denies claim for extra geotechnical No denied... Construction, Inc. v. United States, No, 17-447 C 191346 C (.. ) 17-657 C ( Feb. 27, 2014 ) 17-657 C ( Jan. 22, Peoples Health Network United...