Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba (“NTS”) was awarded a construction contract by the United States Department of the Navy to build a new aircraft carrier maintenance pier at a naval base. The contract required NTS to demolish an old pier, design and build a replacement pier, and construct a new structure known as the Mole Quaywall, which would be designed by the government. During construction, NTS encountered unexpected subsurface soil conditions that complicated and increased the cost of the project. NTS sought additional compensation from the government alleging differing site conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims which had denied NTS's claim for additional compensation. The Court of Federal Claims found that NTS had not established a Type I differing site condition because the contract documents disclosed that NTS would encounter unpredictable subsurface conditions and possible obstructions. It also found that NTS had failed to prove a Type II differing site condition, as it had not demonstrated that any of the potential causes for hard driving were unknown or unusual in the region or materially different from comparable work. The Court of Appeals agreed with these findings and also ruled that the parol evidence rule had not been violated as NTS claimed. The Court of Appeals found that the parol evidence rule does not prevent a party from presenting evidence that a recital of fact in an integrated agreement may be untrue, and the challenged evidence was not introduced to modify any term of the contract. Therefore, the appeal by NTS was denied and the decision of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "NOVA GROUP/TUTOR-SALIBA v. US " on Justia Law

In 2003, the government awarded Parsons a $2.1 billion indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for planning and construction work to be described in subsequent task orders. In 2005, the government issued a $34 million task order to complete an existing, concept-level design and construct the Temporary Lodging Facility and Visiting Quarters, at the McGuire Air Force Base. Design and construction were completed. The Air Force accepted the completed facilities for “beneficial use” in September 2008. In 2012, Parsons submitted a claim for approximately $34 million in additional costs that Parsons allegedly incurred in the design and construction process. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals awarded Parsons about $10.5 million plus interest.The Federal Circuit reversed in part after holding that the Board had Contracts Dispute Act jurisdiction 41 U.S.C. 7102(a)(1), (3). The court dismissed Parsons’ appeal as to its payroll claim and reversed the Board’s denial of recovery to Parsons for its claim to construction costs. On remand, the Board must award Parsons the difference between its cost in constructing a substituted design compared to the cost Parsons would have incurred in constructing a structural brick design. The court affirmed the Board’s conclusion that Parsons’ costs awarded by the Board were reasonable. View "Parsons Evergreene, LLC v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

In 2007, the VA sought to lease space for a Parma, Ohio VA clinic. A pre-solicitation memorandum stated that the building must comply with the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) Security Design Criteria. The subsequent Solicitation discussed the physical security requirements. Premier submitted a proposed design narrative that did not address those requirements. In 2008, Premier and the VA entered into a Lease. Premier was to provide a built-out space as described in the Solicitation. About 18 months later, the VA inquired about Premier’s first design submittal, advising Premier to obtain access to the ISC standards, because “the project needs to be designed according to the ISC.” The ISC denied Premier’s request, stating that the documents had to be requested by a federal contracting officer who has a “need to know.” The VA forwarded copies of three ISC documents. Some confusion ensued as to which standard applied. The VA then instructed Premier to disregard the ISC requirements and to incorporate the requirements from the latest VA Physical Security Guide. Months later, the VA changed position, stating that “[t]he ISC is the design standard.” Premier’s understanding was that only individual spaces listed in a Physical Security Table needed to comply with the ISC. The VA responded that the entire building must conform to the ISC at no additional cost. Premier constructed the building in accordance with the ISC standards then unsuccessfully requested $964,356.40 for additional costs. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the government. The contract unambiguously requires a facility conforming to ISC security requirements. View "Premier Office Complex of Parma, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Meridian contracted to construct the Chula Vista Project flood control project, including construction of concrete channels, relocation of a sewer line, and dewatering and water diversion. After commencing work, Meridian encountered problems relating to “a layer of dripping saturated dark clay material under which a clean layer of sand is producing water” with “the potential for serious structural damage.” The government issued contract modifications, including an increase in funds for larger pipe, addition of a reinforced concrete access ramp, investigation of soil properties, remediation of saturated soils, and additional sheet piling. The government directed Meridian to suspend work following structural failures and terminated the project following a final inspection. Meridian sued for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601−613. The government conceded liability for certain costs relating to suspension of work, channel fill, and interim protection. With respect to other claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part. Meridian’s interpretation of the contract was not reasonable; the existence of subsurface saturated soil conditions was “reasonably foreseeable.” The Trade Court did not impose an improper requirement for investigation of site conditions beyond what a reasonable contractor would undertake. The court remanded for consideration of whether the parties reached a meeting of the minds on flood event claims and held that the Trade Court erred dismissing Meridian’s unpaid contract quantities claim, in light of conflicting information. View "Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) made a $267 million loan to Open Range to finance construction of wireless broadband networks in 540 RUS-approved markets. Open Range subcontracted with G4S. The FCC suspended a permit, so that Open Range lost the spectrum rights necessary to operate the planned network. RUS gave notice of its intent to terminate remaining funds on the loan unless Open Range could obtain replacement rights. Open Range began failing to meet its obligations to subcontractors. The Secretary of Agriculture made loan money available, provided a press release, and offered to reassure subcontractors, but Open Range was unable to regain the full spectrum rights necessary to complete the original project. RUS and Open Range executed an amendment to reflect a loan amount reduced to $180 million, and 160 RUS-approved markets, but Open Range remained unable to satisfy its debts and filed for bankruptcy. G4S filed suit. The Claims Court held that G4S was not a third party beneficiary to the agreement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that G4S asked that the government incur liability simply because it talked to the individuals in charge of a failing project in an attempt to fix the problems. View "G4S Tech., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, the VA entered into a contract with Reliable for electrical improvements at a VA medical center, requiring installation of three backup generators, “new and of the most suitable grade.” Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.211-5, incorporated by reference, requires that supplies be “new, reconditioned, or remanufactured,” and defines “new” as “composed of previously unused components.” Reliable sub-contracted to Fisk, which contracted with DTE. In 2004, DTE delivered two Cummins Power Generation generators to the construction site. The VA’s senior resident engineer inspected the generators and determined that they were not “new.” He wrote to Reliable, stating: They show a lot of wear and tear including field burns to enlarge mounting holes. Are they new and will you certify them as such? I cannot pay you … without that certification. Fisk and Reliable initially agreed that the generators did not meet the contract specification. After investigation, they concluded that the generators, manufactured in 2000, had been previously purchased by others but never used. Fisk obtained different generators, which were accepted by the VA. In 2007, Reliable submitted a claim, seeking $1,100,000 for additional costs incurred as a result of rejection of the original generators. In 2013, the Board of Contract Appeals denied Reliable’s claim. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the contract. View "Reliable Contracting Grp., LLC v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

In 2004, K-Con entered into a contract with the federal government to construct a Coast Guard building in Port Huron Michigan for $582,641. Once K-Con finished, the government imposed liquidated damages of $109,554 for tardiness of 186 days in completion. KCon sued, seeking remission of the liquidated damages on two grounds—that the contract’s liquidated-damages clause was unenforceable and that KCon was entitled to an extension of the completion date. KCon also requested additional compensation based on work performed in response to government requests that K-Con alleges amounted to contract changes. The Court of Federal Claims held that the contract’s liquidated damages clause was enforceable; that K-Con did not comply with the written-notice precondition for invoking the contract clause governing changes; and that K-Con’s claim for an extension on the completion date must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. K-Con failed to comply with the changes clause, and its after-the-fact speculations about what would have happened had it complied do not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether it should be excused for its failure. View "K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2002, the Navy awarded Metcalf a contract to design and build 212 housing units in Hawaii by October, 2006, for $50 million. Problems arose involving soil conditions. The request for proposals stated that the “soil reconnaissance report” was “for preliminary information only” and required that the contractor conduct independent soil investigation, incorporating 48 C.F.R. 52.236-2, concerning site conditions that differ materially from those disclosed. Discussions delayed construction for a year. Metcalf implemented its preferred changes by over-excavating and using non-expansive fill, without a contract modification. The Navy denied that there was any material difference between pre-bid and post-award soil assessments, but approved some modifications. Metcalf was about 200 days behind schedule and began using “post-tension” concrete, which was more expensive but avoided the additional time and cost of over-excavation. The Navy amended the contract to approve use of post-tension concrete slabs. Metcalf claims additional delays resulting from the presence of more of a chemical contaminant than was expected. With respect to contamination, the Navy granted a 286-day extension and reimbursed $1,493,103. The Navy accepted the buildings in March, 2007. Metcalf alleged that its final cost was $76 million. The government paid less than $50 million. The Claims Court ruled in favor of the government, under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7104. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the court misconstrued what Metcalf needed to show to prove that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and misinterpreted certain contractual provisions.View "Metcalf Const. Co., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2001 KBR agreed to provide the Army with logistics support services during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Individual task orders required KBR to install, operate and maintain dining services near Mosul, Iraq on a cost-plus-award-fee basis. KBR selected ABC, a subcontractor, to build a prefabricated metal dining facility and to provide dining services for a camp population of 2,573. In June 2004, the Army ordered KBR to stop construction of the metal facility and begin construction of a reinforced concrete facility for an estimated 2,573 to 6,200+ persons. Instead of requesting bids for the new work, KBR kept ABC as the subcontractor due to the urgency of the request. ABC submitted a new proposal with a total monthly cost about triple the monthly cost initially quoted. ABC attributed the increased costs to additional labor and equipment to serve a larger population and to a drastic increase in the cost of labor and a severe shortage of staff willing to work in Iraq. Due to a calculation error, it was determined that ABC’s proposal was reasonable. KBR’s management reviewed and approved a change order, embodying ABC’s proposal. In 2005 the subcontract ended and title to the dining facility passed to the Army. In 2007, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency suspended payment of certain costs paid by KBR to ABC pursuant to the change order. KBR prepared a new price justification for the concrete dining facility and ultimately filed suit, seeking recovery of the $12,529,504 in costs disapproved for reimbursement. The Claims Court awarded $6,779,762. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a Request for Proposals for the “design-build” construction of a federal correctional institution. The project involved a “cut-to-fill” site, meaning that the ground had to be leveled by excavating materials from one area of the site and using those materials to fill lower areas. Based on information in the solicitation documents and prior experience, BH believed the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Sciences would approve a permit for a one-step-cut-to-fill construction plan and calculated its bid price, $238,175,000, accordingly. The contract provided liquidated damages of $8,000 for each day completion was overdue. The NHDES rejected the application. BH advised the government of the implications of NHDES restrictions, but did not refuse to proceed or request that the government intervene with the NHDES. According to BH, the restrictions were contrary to generally accepted industry practice. Upon completion of cut-to-fill operations, BH submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment, seeking $7,724,885 for excess costs. The Contracting Officer and the Claims Court rejected the request, finding that the Permits and Responsibilities clause placed the burden of obtaining and complying with state and local permits on BH “without additional expense to the Government;” that BH had not alleged violation of the implied duty of good faith; and that, because the government did not control the NHDES, there was no basis for imposing liability for constructive change. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bell/Heery v. United States" on Justia Law