Wunderlich Act

312 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Perini Corp. v. The United States
  381 F.2d 403· Ct. Cl.· 1967-07-20 ·cited 28×
  A substantial variation from an estimated quantity in contract specifications does not constitute a changed condition if the variation was foreseeable by the contractor.
• K E C O Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  364 F.2d 838· Ct. Cl.· 1966-07-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the contract provisions for spare parts and tools were not ambiguous, and the plaintiff was obligated to furnish them within the contract price. The court also found that the change order converting gasoline units to electric units was not a cardinal change an
• Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. The United States
  455 F.2d 556· Ct. Cl.· 1972-02-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the termination of the contract was improper as the plaintiff's bid qualification was not a substantial deviation, and recovery should be measured under the termination-for-convenience clause, not breach of contract principles.
• Tri-Cor, Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 112· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 26×
  The court adopted the trial commissioner's opinion, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the plaintiff's petition.
• Foster Constr. C. A. & Williams Bros. Co. v. The United States
  435 F.2d 873· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that contract design features, not just boring logs, can indicate subsurface conditions for a changed conditions claim. The court found these indications sufficient to support the plaintiff's claim of encountering materially different subsurface conditions.
• Tombigbee Constructors v. The United States
  420 F.2d 1037· Ct. Cl.· 1970-01-23 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' denial of claims for increased costs due to a flooded borrow pit and the requirement to use friable material, finding no mutual mistake or breach of contract.
• Brown v. The United States
  396 F.2d 989· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that its established practice of admitting de novo evidence in military disability-retirement pay cases is proper and should continue.
• Jefferson Constr. Co. OF Fla. v. The United States
  364 F.2d 420· Ct. Cl.· 1966-07-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff contractor was not entitled to recover for increased costs due to borrow pit width discrepancies because the contract documents, read together, provided sufficient warning and data for the contractor to ascertain the potential for wider pits, thu
• lee Hoffman v. The United States
  340 F.2d 645· Ct. Cl.· 1964-05-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the river diversion caused by another contractor constituted a changed condition under the contract, entitling the plaintiff to an equitable adjustment for increased costs, but reduced the recovery amount.
• Itt Arctic Servs., Inc. v. The United States
  524 F.2d 680· Ct. Cl.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the "Wage Escalation" clause in the contract did not entitle the plaintiff to a price increase due to currency exchange rate fluctuations.
• Chaney & James Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  421 F.2d 728· Ct. Cl.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a contractor can recover delay damages under the Suspension of Work clause for delays caused by defective specifications, even if the delay did not affect overall project completion, and that the Panel's standard for review was incorrect.
• Sw. Welding & Mfg. Co. v. The United States
  413 F.2d 1167· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contractor was entitled to recover for the equitable adjustment of the contract price due to the contracting officer's order to replace welds.
• W. G. Cornell Co. of Wash. v. The United States
  376 F.2d 299· Ct. Cl.· 1967-04-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contract's technical provisions, when read as a whole, were ambiguous regarding the type of insulation required, allowing for the use of 'other equally suitable material' and thus permitting the use of blanket insulation.
• Acme Process Equip. Co. v. The United States
  347 F.2d 538· Ct. Cl.· 1965-06-11 ·cited 23×
  The court held that legal expenses incurred in settlement negotiations are compensable, even if after an appeal is filed, but that the plaintiff failed to prove its arrangement with Tucker was a bona fide exception to the covenant against contingent fees.
• Timber Access Indus. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  553 F.2d 1250· Ct. Cl.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Forest Service Manual's method of reappraising timber on a 'sale as a whole' basis, including the original bid premium, is incorporated into the contract and is the proper method for rate redetermination during extensions.
• Kenneth Reed Constr. Corp. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 583· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the "true to line and grade" specification for forms did not require mathematical exactitude, and the contractor was entitled to compensation for extra costs incurred due to the government imposing stricter tolerances than customary. The court also held that t
• Gresham & Co., Inc. v. The United States
  470 F.2d 542· Ct. Cl.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the parties are bound by a stipulation agreeing that the contracts did not require automatic detergent dispensers, despite the specification language.
• Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 994· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove reliance on the government's mistaken pre-bid information, and therefore is not entitled to recover.
• Hegeman-Harris & Co., Inc. v. The United States
  440 F.2d 1009· Ct. Cl.· 1971-04-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff may recover increased state taxes imposed on its subcontractors if the plaintiff bore the burden of those taxes, and that "completed supplies" in the contract clause includes materials furnished by subcontractors for the project.
• Gorn Corp. v. The United States
  424 F.2d 588· Ct. Cl.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff reasonably complied with the ambiguous specifications, and the contracts were therefore wrongfully terminated.
• Vann v. The United States
  420 F.2d 968· Ct. Cl.· 1970-01-23 ·cited 22×
  A release is ineffective if it contains a proviso stating it is not binding if a prior administrative decision is found to violate the Wunderlich Act standards, and if the claims asserted in the amended petition relate back to the original petition.
• Jefferson Constr. Co. v. The United States
  368 F.2d 247· Ct. Cl.· 1966-11-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that plaintiff's claims were limited to a review of the administrative record under the Wunderlich Act, and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Board of Contract Appeals' findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
• Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. The United States
  580 F.2d 400· Ct. Cl.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the plaintiff's delivery delays were not excusable and the assessed liquidated damages were not a penalty.
• Foster Wheeler Corp. v. The United States
  513 F.2d 588· Ct. Cl.· 1975-03-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the contract specifications were impossible to perform, and the Government bears the risk of this impossibility, entitling the plaintiff to recover costs incurred in attempting to perform.
• Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. The United States
  509 F.2d 541· Ct. Cl.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Board erred in finding the contract was terminated for default, as neither a specific completion date nor a reasonable one was established, nor was there a valid tender of delivery for a nonconforming product.
• Int'l Tel. & Tel. v. The United States
  453 F.2d 1283· Ct. Cl.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government's failure to provide timely written notice of fund availability for the 1968 program year, as required by the contract, resulted in the contract's termination for that year, entitling the plaintiff to recover.
• H. N. Bailey & Assocs. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 376· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' findings were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or grossly erroneous, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's claims.
• Max Drill, Inc. v. The United States
  427 F.2d 1233· Ct. Cl.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government contract was ambiguous regarding the painting of wood sashes, and the contractor's reasonable interpretation, confirmed by the technical representative, should be upheld.
• Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. The United States
  416 F.2d 1306· Ct. Cl.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 20×
  The court, in dissent, would interpret the Truth-in-Negotiations Act to disallow offsets, favoring the government's position.
• Ambrose-Augusterfer Corp. v. The United States
  394 F.2d 536· Ct. Cl.· 1968-05-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the contract, when read in its entirety, required the contractor to perform the disputed work of removing and relocating lighting fixtures attached to ductwork, as this was an indispensable part of the installation and a risk accepted by the contractor.
• Loral Elecs. Corp. v. The United States
  387 F.2d 975· Ct. Cl.· 1967-12-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the lease and option agreements were not intended as an acquisition of realty by the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for rental payments, not ownership costs.
• Turnbull, Inc. v. The United States
  389 F.2d 1007· Ct. Cl.· 1967-07-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the administrative determination of the equitable adjustment amount was supported by substantial evidence and therefore final and conclusive under the Wunderlich Act.
• Kings Elecs. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  341 F.2d 632· Ct. Cl.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the contracting officer's approval of plaintiff's proposed tolerances constituted a change to the contract, entitling plaintiff to an equitable adjustment for increased costs.
• Utah Constr. & Mining Co. v. The United States
  339 F.2d 606· Ct. Cl.· 1964-12-11 ·cited 20×
  The court rejects the government's contention that de novo evidence is inappropriate for factual questions related to contract disputes.
• United States v. Pickett's Food Serv.
  360 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the administrative bodies erred in interpreting the contract and applying improper legal standards, and that the contractor is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered.
• B. D. Click Co., Inc. v. The United States
  614 F.2d 748· Ct. Cl.· 1980-01-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the contract clearly required the installation of a complete sprinkler system, and the plaintiff's claim was barred by a signed release of claims, which was not rendered invalid by alleged duress.
• Rixon Elecs., Inc. v. The United States
  536 F.2d 1345· Ct. Cl.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the contractor's release of claims was valid and not procured by economic duress or mutual mistake, affirming the ASBCA's denial of the claim.
• The Arundel Corp. v. The United States
  515 F.2d 1116· Ct. Cl.· 1975-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Board's factual determination regarding changed conditions was arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence under the Wunderlich Act.
• H & M Moving, Inc. v. The United States
  499 F.2d 660· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Department of Commerce Appeals Board correctly applied equitable estoppel to prevent the contractor from claiming pre-May 1970 travel-time payments due to the contractor's misleading silence in billing.
• Farrell Lines Inc. v. The United States
  499 F.2d 587· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Maritime Subsidy Board's determination that plaintiff's training costs were ineligible for subsidy was erroneous as a matter of law.
• United Pac. Ins. Co. v. The United States
  497 F.2d 1402· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the contract language, specifically the use of 'or' in TP2-8, permitted alternative methods for installing flashings, and the Government could not demand a more expensive method not explicitly required.
• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The United States
  493 F.2d 1357· Ct. Cl.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Assistant Secretary's interpretation of the Vessel Exchange Act and the contract regarding the cost of in-class repairs was correct, and that deferring the final valuation of vessels until after redelivery was permissible under the Act.
• Seger v. The United States
  469 F.2d 292· Ct. Cl.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the Board of Contract Appeals' findings, denying the subcontractor's claims for extra work and delay costs.
• Northbridge Elecs., Inc. v. The United States
  444 F.2d 1124· Ct. Cl.· 1971-07-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's claim for breach of contract is beyond the court's jurisdiction when the claims are redressable by an administrative body, and that generalized, conclusory opinion testimony is insufficient to overturn administrative findings of fact.
• Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. The United States
  429 F.2d 431· Ct. Cl.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the contractor is entitled to compensation for increased costs resulting from a suspension of work due to a changed condition, even if the government was not at fault.
• WM. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1325· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the plaintiffs' petition.
• Bromion v. The United States
  411 F.2d 1020· Ct. Cl.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the ASBCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, and that the plaintiff failed to prove mutual mistake or legal error.
• Phillips Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  394 F.2d 834· Ct. Cl.· 1968-05-10 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' determination of an equitable adjustment amount, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary.
• S. S. Mullen, Inc. v. The United States
  389 F.2d 390· Ct. Cl.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment because the government breached its implied warranty that the furnished tramway would be suitable for the intended use, and the Board of Contract Appeals erred in finding otherwise.
• McLEAN Trucking Co., Inc. v. The United States
  387 F.2d 657· Ct. Cl.· 1967-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's interpretation of 'destination' in the tariff was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and thus upheld the ICC's order.