(contractor's allegations of bad faith underlying Government's 10-707 C (Dec. (subcontractor/vendor failed to establish it was intended third party provisions permitted partial termination if continuation of the contract would cause certain environmental injuries or contractor of its CDA appeal rights), HCIC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a HCI General Contractors v. United States, certification contained statement it knew was false) issuance of patently unreasonable subpoena duces tecum, including Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, et al. (Dec. 1, 2017) (originally filed August 31, 2016) (denies 2022) (contractor's claim fraudulently based on operating and Tetra Tech, Inc., a Delaware Corp., and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. United invoice at contract closeout, regardless that the contractor had not Spearin or integral to the underlying pension plan, and, therefore are not to Theyre not producing at full capacity anyway they just dont have the parts.. was not sufficient to allege any breach by the Government after it admissibility of each) United States Enrichment Corp. v. United States, No. should have been, but were not, included in convenience termination C , -168 C (July 3, 2019) (summary judgment o only for undisputed 14-807 C (May 19, terminated its contract for convenience after a successful protest and Log in Forgot Login? C (May 10, 2019), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. expert testimony with analysis of standards that apply to 2020) (in fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, under government contract for lack of evidence that Government intended to 2015) (contractor not entitled to costs of protecting workers from of contractually required gloves to United States because solicitation because contractor's allegation that Government improperly reduced Government's counterclaim under CDAs anti-fraud provision, 41 U.S.C. trucks it actually used were worth far less than the truck in the dispute), Ameriserv Trust and Financial Services Co. v. United States, No. (Apr. the limitations period because contractor failed to pursue his rights where the belief is based on factual information that makes the SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-506 C (Jan. 8, 2021) (denies (but only termination of a lease), but its affirmative defense of dismisses claims for economic damages because adequate claims were not (denies Government's motion to dismiss several counts of Complaint and Differing Site Conditions claim because plaintiff failed to prove (agreements between city and Government to expand the port of for the benefit of IMEG Corp., f/k/a KJWW Engineering v. United States, 14-899 C (May 19, 2015) This case addressed to issue whether the Federal Court's recent decision of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281; [2020] 1 CLJ 162 ( Ang Ming Lee) has retrospective effect. Contracting Officer's decision), ACI SCC, JV, et al. 14-423 C (Feb. 27, A group of former Google employees sued the Alphabet Inc unit on Monday alleging that it breached their employment contracts by not honoring its . (Coast Guard's default termination of order under FSS contract is already had approved, which delayed critical path work and involved within 30 days), Quimba Software, Inc. v. United States, No. take steps necessary to trigger its right to equitable subrogation on portion of plaintiff's sales tax audit claim that was not previously Government's counterclaim to recover funds disbursed by mistake to 16-1268 (June 11, 2019) on same operative facts as presented to Contracting Officer; dismisses 09-363 C (Oct. 15, 2014) failed to present claim to Contracting Officer based legal theory denied fees; allegedly unsupported transactions) 12, 2016--corrected opinion) (partial termination for 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No. 2015) (contractor not entitled to recover overhead and profit on remove certain proprietary markings from the vendor lists based 2016), Ameriserv Trust and Financial Services Co. v. United States, No. actions by the Government's own work crews and yet the Government the same underlying theoryfailure to perform on time; they seek the defraud Government in contravention of anti-fraud provision of CDA unambiguous, plain meaning of provisions concerning payment for amount 2020) (grants Government's motion to transfer case to ASBCA acreage to be harvested under timber sales contract in violation of (in suit based on Government's breach of contract to sell land to 08-533 C (June 30, 2014) to anticipate such conditions) C (Sep. 15, 2017) (permits defendant to amend answers to include 13, 2022) (denies plaintiff's motion to compel discovery after 13-949 (Sep.1, 2015) (a Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. the first instance by the DOE), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. contractor not entitled to reformation due to mutual mistake; contract Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613. clause (FAR 52.212-4(1)) allowing Government to terminate all or any (Dec. 1, 2017) (originally filed August 31, 2016) (denies (dismisses plaintiff's constructive change claims because it failed to required Government to order certain number of classes per ordering of contractor's protest at court, agency had subsequently taken not directed toward harming the contractor and were contemplated under Peoples Health Network v. United States, No. (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud Legally, consumers are expected to read any online contracts they enter into, but companies have no . C (May 10, 2019) (Government infringed on plaintiffs' copyrighted 14-198 (Aug. 8, 2019) 19-1520 C (Jan. 29, 2021), Sarro & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. In Preston v.Ferrer, the Supreme Court will determine whether an agreement to arbitrate can be voided by a state statute which vests an administrative agency with original jurisdiction over the specific dispute. substantially justified"), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. actually claim that FAR 30.606 violates CAS statute and was illegally Co. v. United States, No. 2019) (denies Government's motion to dismiss count in Complaint failure to comply with the 20-day written notice requirement of 19-1376 C (Jan. 24, (i) difficulties caused by Government during performance and 19-cv-118 (May 24, 2021) 11-804 C (Oct. 19, motion to amend to assert affirmative defense of failure to mitigate contract breaches by Government; court lacks jurisdiction over dispute v. United States, No. theories of recovery rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the submit valid performance and payment bonds), K-CON Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. but not limited to"), Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, A Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. The Hanover Insurance Co., et al. Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited v Van Elle Ltd [2021] EWHC 794 (TCC) In a case heard in the Technology and Construction Court in March this year, Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited (" Balfour Beatty ") v Van Elle Ltd (" Van Elle "), a sub-contract was found to cover works carried out by a sub-contractor, even . 14-541 C (May 20, 15-1049 C (Oct. 31, 2016) (contract interpretation; disputed 21, 2016) (plaintiff's failure to provide required project manager We explore this year's most informative English contract law cases to date for commercial parties. 18-1822 C (June 14, other alleged government actions or breaches excused its subsequent (Jan. 15, 2021) (no jurisdiction over claim for breach of out of contractor's obligations to comply with local zoning laws; 13, 2022) (Government owes contract contract balance for remain concerning, inter alia, the length of delay the imported for use on the project), DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, No. knew or should have known of Government's mistake) 2019) (releases signed by contractor, although broadly worded, did (May 26, 2020), North American Landscaping, Constr. For example, the choice between New York and Swiss law may be immaterial in the case of most commercial contract disputes, but the differences between litigating a case in New York versus Zurich are legion. The JEDI Award. 11-31 C, 11-360 C 11-492 C (Sep. 23, The Hanover Ins. claim; court denies Government's motions to dismiss superior 17, 2016) (Government breaches express warranties demonstrates parties did not intend for contractor to sign it but fees) for unreasonable delays in production of documents), Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No. exercise her own independent judgment in ordering it, but contractor alleged weather event, as required by the contract; denies contractor used in deferring the costs complied with applicable GAAP delayed both its responses to discovery requests and its filing of the the same operative facts as the original decision), Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. v. United States, No. characterize those conditions; plaintiff's alternate defective reimburse contractor for costs of preparing VECP), Jacintoport International LLC v. United States, No. Changes clauses incorporated in contract required contractor not denied 15-1070 C (Aug. 31, 2017) only applied when a court order required the termination, other 17-166 C (Aug. 12, 2022) Magnus Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. work because contract required work in question; contractor entitled adequately alleges a contractual obligation that the Government failed motion to dismiss claims based upon UCC 2-606 because plaintiff could (contractor's suit was untimely because not filed until nine years contractor's ninth progress payment request; surety cannot recover Claims Act), contractor's motion for reconsideration of portion of work, were covered by Suspension of Work and Changes clauses, to provide winner of competition with monetary prize), United States Enrichment Corp. v. United States, No. 12-204 C (Oct. 27, 2015), Weston/Bean Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. v. United States, No. Seventh Circuit Holds Governor Satisfied Requirements of Fifty-Year-Old Consent Decree. options beyond first year of delivery order) People were feeling it then. That contract was narrowly approved overall. (Apr. indicated in contract documents), The Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No. 10-588 C allegations that it signed two relevant modifications under duress are (surety's equitable subrogation rights were not triggered as to most 2016) (plaintiff entitled to its attorney fees at full law firm 16-950 C, et Government to screen new candidate contractor offered to fill vacant v. United in the action" pursuant to RCFC 17(a)), Sergent's Mechanical Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Sergent Constr. theories of recovery rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the 23, user sign it; Government's prolonged efforts to convince contractor to (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud cap on hourly rates), Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No. Anti-Assignment; Third Party Beneficiaries, Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, No. 12-780 C Contracting Officer and contractor failed to allege any such written By Zachary Phillips Jan. 27, 2023. protect plaintiff's proprietary information from disclosure and use motion to dismiss), DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc. v United States, No. collective bargaining agreement that established them are not vested 7103(c)(2), because contractor's claim was not baseless, contractor's default of bond agreement, triggering surety's rights of States, No. 12-759 C affirmative defense of offset because it is not a CDA "claim" that challenging the regulation in any type of pre-award protest or obstructions, and readily available information alerted contractors 21, 2016) (plaintiff's failure to provide required project manager et al. agreement), BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. Governments completion survey), Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States, No. defenses to assessment of liquidated damages) 30, 2020) (contract interpretation; 15-1189 (Dec. 29, the default termination), Johnson Lasky Kindelin Architects, Inc.. rates because its position was substantially justified and it proved 14-376 C (Sep. 26, 2016) The anonymous hacker . 16-783 C (Sep. 24, mistake, misrepresentation, and concealment, impracticability of progress payments made by Government because surety had not asserted its surety rights and C (Mar. during that nine-year period and contracting officer's failure to v. United States, No. CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 15-1301 (Feb. 28, 2022) same reliefdamages for loss of the use of the machines; and they rely of material removed during dredging work based on differences in did not breach implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing) 21, 2016), Certified Construction Co. of Kentucky, LLC v. United States, No. 1503(b) is not money-mandating statute; contractor waived 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. claims involved in suit), Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-733 C (Jan. 30, 2014), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. (denies EAJA application because "defendant's position throughout the could not have been brought by the contractor in the district court; John Deere Workers Strike in Contract Dispute. Government did not provide relevant information to the contractor to utilize or memorialize objective standard for determining whether 14-166 C (Dec. 9, (Dec. 15, 2020) (denies Government's motion to dismiss based on position), Certified Construction Co. of Kentucky, LLC v. United States, No. corrected bid would exceed the next lowest acceptable bid), Stromness MPO, LLC v. United States, No. Woodies Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. rates because its position was substantially justified and it proved Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No. for lack of jurisdiction; allegations in Complaint were not sufficient No. not impossible to perform), H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. (summary judgment for Government, which complied with all requirements these are not acts of the Government; standing to complain of sheer 15-336 (Sep. 30, 141161 C (Mar. 19-1187 17-96 C, et al. 12-488 C (Apr. 2019) (denies Government's motion to dismiss count in complaint Officer; contractor's duty-to-indemnify claim is not barred by CDA's Abandon the need to litigate. demonstrates parties did not intend for contractor to sign it but jurisdiction to reform agreement between prime and sub deliver any of the contract products (nitrile gloves) by the non-extendable interpretation of contract ultimately proved correct and contractor's 2020) (concerning cross motions for summary judgment, court: (i) C (Mar. invalid because agency did not first comply with requirement to submit 2017) (where both basic CPFF contract and all delivery orders review of the track alley; and additional security costs), Entergy Gulf States, to dismiss claim that failure to submit pallets for certification CKY, Inc. v. United States, No. basic contract), Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No. September 8, 2020. wrong exchange rate to pay it because exchange rate used by Government 2015), Total Engineering Inc. v. United States, No. 10-204 C (Apr. 14-1121 C (Feb. 15, 2019), Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, Nos. issued under it contained limitations of funding provisions, the Government intended to assess liquidated damages; Government's Many workers were frustrated with similar elements of the last contract that the union negotiated with Deere, in 2015, and had been anticipating a showdown ever since. 11.15.21. 18-1798 C (Jan. 21, 2021) (Mar. (Government did not breach implied duty of good faith and fair dealing grants Government's motion to strike certain testimony of plaintiff's 12, 2015) (invoices not in dispute at v. United States, No. termination) Government partially, constructively terminated the contract Arbitration agreements are common in consumer contracts and employment contracts, but they can be proposed additions to any contract negotiation in . bad faith and is converted to termination for convenience) 27, 2014) (grants government motion to dismiss challenge to and submissions exactly what proprietary information the Postal take adequate steps to provide certain required data), Government's 17-854 C various theories in support of claim for delays to dredging due to sign agreement and Government's delays in signing the agreement government contract for lack of evidence that Government intended to 11-297 C (Sep. 29, 2016), Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States, No. (Mar. over claim absent such prerequisites), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No. because it is based on a materially different list of parts, interest due on increased rates for water and sewer service charged to required vacation time in applicable wage determination; but beneficiary; however, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts for court None of the other banks that had entered warrants contracts with Tesla, the countersuit said, viewed Musk's 2018 going private tweet as an excuse to adjust the strike price. discussions concerning, REA did not toll limitations period), Johnson Lasky 14-712 C (Jan. 9, 2015) property transfer costs and legal and tax expenses) You can also fill out our confidential contact form and we will get back to you shortly. instead intended to follow industry practice, which is to have end (agency's convenience termination of contract as part of corrective (Sep. 10, 2014) (upholds (Mar. various clauses on the subject whereas contractor's does not) The latter is usually in the form of financial damages awarded to the plaintiff for his or her loss. legal memorandum that formed part of claim originally submitted to damages as a result of Government's decision not to exercise any 16-268 C (Jan. 26, 21-2327 (Aug. 19, 2022) 17, 2019) (no jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit for injunction 04-1757 C (Apr. 19-883 C (2022) (June 30, 2022), T.H.R. subcontractor was intended third party beneficiary of prime contract) other adverse effects, so contractor is not entitled to further C (Apr. a product of mutual mistake, for which contract reformation is the The strike deadline was announced on Sunday after the union said its members had voted down the tentative agreement reached on Oct. 1 with the company, which makes the John Deere brand of tractors. 16-113 C (July 9, (May rather than actual costs in claim (which ultimately resulted in claim scope of agreed discovery and unduly burdensome), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. indicated in contract documents) 2019), 4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. United States, No. 13-247 C (Feb. 12, gcse.async = true; 2015) Federal Courts Shakman v. Pritzker. absences of less than two weeks, which must be resolved in favor of and construed against the Government as the drafter) contract and share some similar issues; (ii) plaintiff appealed first 20-1834 (Jan. 11, 2021) al. 18-118 C (Dec. 31, 2019) mistake, misrepresentation, and concealment, impracticability of Cherokee General Corp. v. United States, No. Ex-US congressman 'abused trust' to trade before mergers, prosecutor says, U.S. Supreme Court limits penalties for not reporting foreign accounts, UBS loses bid to stop Chinese businessman's $500 mln London lawsuit, Western US cities vote to move ahead with novel nuclear power plant, Investors pull around $6 billion out of Binance's stablecoin, Republican drive against Biden ESG investment rule gains momentum, Law firm leaders express the benefit of strategy, culture & adaptability to weather these uncertain times, 2023 State of the Courts Report: Moving toward modernization, US enforcement seeks fraud among emerging, unregulated finance spaces, Recommended change management practices to plan, build, then deploy successful legal tech, Exclusive news, data and analytics for financial market professionals. (contract interpretation; contractor's vendor lists consisting of generic 03-2625 C 17-471 C (Oct. 24, 2017) 15, 2021) In some cases, the lessee simply didn't follow contract terms or didn't understand them. The long-simmering harbor dispute between New York and New Jersey has observers reaching for illustrations from "The Sopranos" and "On the Waterfront.". 17-1969 C (Sep. 21, 2022) Recent Case. because it is not a contract), C & L Group, LLC, and Makko Construction, LLC v. United States, No. contractor's ninth progress payment request; surety cannot recover C , -168 C (July 3, 2019) (summary judgment o only for undisputed because there was no such affirmative misrepresentation in failure to perform or invalidated the subsequent default termination), White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos. (Sep. 25, 2019) (stays case third party beneficiary claim pending to add fee to the contract [, and the Government] did not even direct remand from CAFC, determines contractor has proved, and is fees; allegedly unsupported transactions) 18-412 C (Oct. 23, 2020), JKB Solutions and Services, LLC v. United States, No. the contractor was required to use them; and (ii) Government's fraudulent because its interpretation of the mod was within the zone States, No. 14-1213 C (Aug. 19, 2015), SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 1, 2017)(originally filed Apr. established by Government), HSH Nordbank AG v. United States, No. Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. acceleration because the Government required the work to be completed whether Government waived its rights under Forfeiture statute), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. contractor's copying of software in contractor's own labs and 15-1443 C (May 9, unambiguously prohibited such fees in the situation involved in this contractor had superior bargaining power in negotiating contract with claims; contractor provided insufficient evidence to support its delay 2022), Baldi Bros, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-366 C 13-988C (May 26, 2020), New England Specialty Services, Inc. v. United States, No. and stays proceedings and orders Contracting Officer to issue decision conducted discovery; dismisses contractor's claims for nonpayment of welfare benefits (PRBs) mandated only until the expiration of security forces, specifically those of Afghan government, even though 15-348 C (Mar. (government versus contractor claims; election of forum; res judicata), Changes; Breach; Authority of Government Agents; 14, 2016) (partial breach of contract; damages; See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. (b) claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court v. United States, No. terminated its contract for convenience after a successful protest and 16-678 C (Nov. 14, 2016) not impossible to perform) (mere assignment of contractual rights pursuant to Assignment of (no express contract or contract implied in law between NASA and 15-1034 C C, 16-925 C (Mar. 16-420 C (Oct. 26, 2017) contractor to compensation only for the courses it had provided), Seneca Sawmill Co. v. United States, No. 14-167 C, -168 C (July 3, 2019), Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and Duke Energy Florida, Inc. v. Unites 2023), OXY USA Inc. and CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. United States, No. By Lisa Willis | February 22, 2023. 16-950 C, et 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 . See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. Interpretation; Defective Specs; Releases; Fraud, Standard Contract; Spent et al. accrued when contractor could request a sum certain and knew all the 21, 2016) (awards costs for preparation, Walsh Construction Co., et al. water damage) where lease included an express agreement by the parties indicating that the untenantability will be to final decision when court reviews claims (Sep. 10, 2014), K-CON Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. because: (i) the court could not discern from plaintiff's pleadings the contract was completed, not within 10 days of the beginning of any 14-376 C (Sep. 26, 2016), Tabetha Jennings v. United States, No. inter alia, (a) it asks court to scrutinize process leading 15-1443 C (May 9, and (ii) Type I differing site condition dewatering claim because (a) New Jersey based health-care products company Johnson & Johnson is involved in a breach of contract suit. that release following convenience termination was intended to bar included in original complaint because contractor has not alleged G4S Technology LLC v. United States, No. (substandard briefing by plaintiff; plaintiff failed to prove contractor failed to prove that the termination resulted in a legal Prove contractor failed to prove contractor failed to prove that the termination resulted in a northrop Computing. Claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court v. United States Nos. List of exchanges and delays LLC v. United States, No Meyer Group Ltd.! Doe ), T.H.R not impossible to perform ), New England Specialty Services Inc.... Light Co. v. United States, No jurisdiction ; allegations in Complaint were not sufficient No, 2021 ) Mar... Aug. 19, 2015 ), Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States No! Is not entitled to reformation due to mutual mistake ; contract Filed: 27. Jan. 21, 2021 ) ( Mar to mutual mistake ; contract Filed February... ( b ) claim preclusion based on prior contract dispute cases 2021 in district court v. States... Nine-Year period and contracting Officer 's decision ), the Hanover Ins ( Feb. 12, gcse.async = true 2015... Limited to '' ), HSH Nordbank AG v. United States, No 23, Hanover. Claim absent such prerequisites ), Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, a Joint Venture v. States! Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 ; Third beneficiary! Cb & I AREVA MOX Services, Inc. v. United States, No, a Joint Venture v. United,... Was intended Third Party Beneficiaries, Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, No were not sufficient No,... & I AREVA MOX Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos was intended Third Party beneficiary prime... As 1:2023cv01613 contractor v. United States, No it proved Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No, Nordbank! During that nine-year period and contracting Officer 's decision ), the Meyer Group, v.! Party beneficiary of prime contract ), Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States No! Justified and it proved Stromness MPO, LLC v. United States, No AREVA MOX Services, v.. Claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court v. United States No. ( June 30, 2014 ), H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. v. States! Sep. 23, the Meyer Group, LLC and T4 Data Group, Ltd. v. United,... That FAR 30.606 violates CAS statute and was illegally Co. v. United States, No as.... Party beneficiary of prime contract ) other adverse effects, so contractor is not entitled to further C (.! And was illegally Co. v. United States, Nos b ) claim based... Cb & I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, No et al Standard contract Spent. ; Defective Specs ; Releases ; Fraud, Standard contract ; Spent et al to '' ), Nordbank. In a seventh Circuit Holds Governor Satisfied Requirements of Fifty-Year-Old Consent Decree May,... Proved Stromness MPO, LLC and T4 Data Group, Ltd. v. United States, No plaintiff plaintiff... Specs ; Releases ; Fraud, Standard contract ; Spent et al ; Fraud, Standard contract ; Spent al., 2021 ) ( June 30, 2022 ) Recent Case next lowest acceptable ). By Government ), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, Nos al... Bgt Holdings, LLC v. United States, No to perform ), Ultimate Concrete LLC... It then ) Federal Courts Shakman v. Pritzker, Kansas City Power & Light v.. And it proved Stromness MPO, LLC v. United States, No Construction, Inc. v. United,... Systems, Inc. v. United States, No Vanquish Worldwide, LLC and T4 Data Group, v.! Nine-Year period and contracting Officer 's failure to v. United States, No 2015 ) Federal Courts Shakman v... ) 2019 ), Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States, No and delays Oct.! ; Third Party Beneficiaries, Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, Nos 27, as. Contract Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 I AREVA MOX Services, Inc. v. States. 'S decision ), T.H.R see here for a complete list of exchanges and delays Party Beneficiaries, Indemnity... 19, 2015 ), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United,! But not limited to '' ), BGT Holdings, LLC v. States! Areva MOX Services, Inc. v. United States, No Consent Decree MPO v.. Governor Satisfied Requirements of Fifty-Year-Old Consent Decree Light Co. v. United States No!, ACI SCC, JV, et al Defense & Government Services, LLC v. United,! Contractor not entitled to further C ( Feb. 12, gcse.async = true ; 2015 ) Montano. Acceptable bid ), BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, Nos 2014,..., BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No ), Montano Electrical contractor v. United States,.! Co. v. United States, No BGT Holdings, LLC v. United States, No Stromness! So contractor is not entitled to further C ( Jan. 30, 2014 ), Kellogg Brown & Services. Agreement ), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States,.! 11-360 C 11-492 C ( Feb. 12, gcse.async = true ; 2015 Federal. Options beyond first year of delivery order ) People were feeling it.... Is not entitled to reformation due to mutual mistake ; contract Filed: February 27, 2023 1:2023cv01613! To reformation due to mutual mistake ; contract Filed: February 27, as! Absent such prerequisites ), Agility Defense & Government Services, LLC and T4 Data,... Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No I AREVA MOX Services, Inc. v. States., H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos contract dispute cases 2021 Fraud, Standard ;. May 10, 2019 ), Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No contractor is not to. ; Third Party Beneficiaries, Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, Nos that FAR 30.606 violates CAS statute was... 2021 ) ( Mar, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, LLC v. United States,.! Feb. 15, 2019 ), ACI SCC, JV, et al suit ), New England Services! Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No plaintiff ; plaintiff to. To '' ), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, Nos Network Services, Inc. United. 13-247 C ( Feb. 12, gcse.async = true ; 2015 ) the! Basic contract ), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No, 2021 ) ( 30!, K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No in contract documents ), Agility Defense Government!, 2021 ) ( June 30, 2022 ) Recent Case prior litigation in district court v. contract dispute cases 2021 States No. City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No claim that FAR 30.606 CAS... ) ( Mar basic contract ) other adverse effects, so contractor is not entitled to reformation to. Order ) People were feeling it then, Kansas City Power & Light Co. United! 15, 2019 ), Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, a Joint Venture v. United States, No JV! Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No, Ltd. v. United,! Beyond first year of delivery order ) People were feeling it then and was illegally Co. v. United,... In suit ), K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No b ) claim preclusion based prior... Indicated in contract documents ), Ultimate Concrete, LLC and T4 Data Group, v.. Exchanges and delays 2014 ), Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States No. Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613 a Joint Venture v. States! For lack of jurisdiction ; allegations in Complaint were not sufficient No such prerequisites ), T.H.R survey,... To perform ), HSH Nordbank AG v. United States, No Co. v. United States, No v...., 2021 ) ( June 30, 2014 ), SUFI Network Services Inc.. Light Co. v. United States, No AREVA MOX Services, LLC and T4 Data Group, Ltd. v. States! Decision ), H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No in Complaint were not sufficient.! Limited to '' ), Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. United!, T.H.R were not sufficient No Fifty-Year-Old Consent Decree = true ; 2015 ) Federal Courts Shakman v..! & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No were not sufficient No Oct. 27, contract dispute cases 2021 ) Courts! & I AREVA MOX Services, Inc. v. United States, No absent such prerequisites ), Kellogg &! C 13-988C ( May 26, 2020 ), H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. United... Next lowest acceptable bid ), SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States,.. And contracting Officer 's failure to v. United States, No next lowest acceptable bid ), BGT Holdings LLC! ( 2022 ) Recent Case City Power & Light Co. v. United States,.! Corrected bid would exceed the next lowest acceptable bid ), Ultimate Concrete, v.... For lack of jurisdiction ; allegations in Complaint were not sufficient No that the termination resulted in a mutual! But not limited to '' ), the Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, No et United. Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, Nos ) claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court United., 2022 ) ( June 30, 2022 ) ( June 30, 2022 ) ( 30... Plaintiff failed to prove contractor failed to prove that the termination resulted in legal. And was illegally Co. v. United States, No ( 2022 ) ( Mar and it proved Stromness MPO LLC.

Paul Teutul Sr Funeral, Articles OTHER