Wunderlich Act

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

• Gelco Builders & Burjay Constr. Corp. v. The United States
  369 F.2d 992· Ct. Cl.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the omission of 'supply ducts' in an addendum to contract specifications was an inadvertent error, and the original requirement to cover supply ducts remained in effect due to other referenced provisions and the overall context of the specifications.
• Banks Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  364 F.2d 357· Ct. Cl.· 1966-07-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the government breached the contract by inadequate drainage design or by failing to maintain existing ditches, as the contract did not guarantee rapid drainage and abnormal rainfall was the primary cause of the plaintiff's difficu
• Edward R. Marden Corp. v. The United States
  442 F.2d 364· Ct. Cl.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 17×
  A claim for defective specifications that results in a cardinal change is not redressable under the contract and thus allows for a de novo trial, merging with a breach of contract claim for superior knowledge. The court denied the defendant's request for review, holding that the
• P.J. Maffei Bldg. Wrecking Corp. v. The United States
  732 F.2d 913· Fed. Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the contract documents did not 'indicate' the amount of steel recoverable, and Maffei's reliance on the drawings was not justified, thus affirming summary judgment for the Government.
• Framlau Corp. v. The United States
  568 F.2d 687· Ct. Cl.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the contract required monolithic construction of floors and girders, and the contractor was not entitled to an equitable adjustment for being required to comply with this interpretation.
• George Hyman Constr. Co. v. The United States
  564 F.2d 939· Ct. Cl.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 16×
• Nw. Indus. Piping, Inc. v. The United States
  467 F.2d 1308· Ct. Cl.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the contract specifications clearly and unambiguously required aluminum jacketing for all exterior above-ground pipe fittings, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to additional compensation for this work.
• Winston Bros. Co. & Green Constr. Co. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 49· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 16×
  A contractor cannot recover for equipment lost due to defective government specifications if the loss was covered by insurance, as the contractor is considered financially whole.
• Maney Aircraft Parts, Inc. v. The United States
  453 F.2d 1260· Ct. Cl.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the Board's untimeliness determination was not legally erroneous, the Board has discretion to waive or extend the contractual time limit for appeals.
• Sherwin v. The United States
  436 F.2d 992· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Veterans Administration Contract Appeals Board erred in refusing to apply the 'standard of quality' clause, and that the rejected Russelectric switch met this standard, entitling the plaintiff to an equitable adjustment for the increased costs incurred.
• United States for the Use of White Masonry, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc.
  434 F.2d 855· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of pre-contract discussions when a contract is ambiguous, and that the parties' interpretation of an ambiguous contract is enforceable.
• M. Rudolph Preuss in Bankr. of Est. of Crosby-Teletronics Corp. v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1293· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the Board's findings that the plaintiff's default was due to its own financial condition, not defective government-furnished microfilm, and that the microfilm was suitable for its intended purpose.
• Ctr. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  392 F.2d 229· Ct. Cl.· 1968-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The contractor's interpretation of the specifications was reasonable, and the specifications were impossible to comply with while passing the required tests.
• Crown Coat Front Co., Inc. v. United States
  363 F.2d 407· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The statute of limitations for claims under the Tucker Act should be tolled during the pendency of mandatory administrative proceedings required by a contract's disputes clause.
• Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. The United States
  348 F.2d 475· Ct. Cl.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the Capehart Act's mortgage insurance provisions limit the total cost payable from mortgage proceeds, appropriated funds may be used to pay contractor claims for work necessitated by government-defective plans or changed conditions, even if it exceeds th
• Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. The United States
  345 F.2d 808· Ct. Cl.· 1965-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court should allow the Board of Contract Appeals to consider the merits of the plaintiff's appeal, rather than the court taking jurisdiction.
• Kaminer Constr. Corp. v. The United States
  488 F.2d 980· Ct. Cl.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the presence of undersized bolts constituted a latent defect, negating final acceptance of the work, and that the board was justified in disregarding prior stipulations for a de novo hearing.
• Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. The United States
  479 F.2d 1342· Ct. Cl.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Board's decision that the Government was entitled to a price reduction due to defective pricing was supported by substantial evidence and correct as a matter of law.
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. The United States
  558 F.2d 985· Ct. Cl.· 1977-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Government waived its objection to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' jurisdiction by failing to object to the board's hearing of the license dispute, thus making the board's findings binding in subsequent litigation.
• Jonal Corp. v. Dist. of Columbia
  533 F.2d 1192· D.C. Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Wunderlich Act's "substantial evidence" standard of review applies to disputes arising under District of Columbia contracts, but this limitation may not govern if there are serious defects in the establishment or procedures of the Contract Appeals Board. A
• Tony Downs Foods Co. v. The United States
  530 F.2d 367· Ct. Cl.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government is not contractually liable for losses incurred by a contractor due to the termination of a price freeze, as such termination is a sovereign act for which the government bears no contractual responsibility. Furthermore, a contractor's increased
• William F. Klingensmith, Inc. v. The United States
  505 F.2d 1257· Ct. Cl.· 1974-11-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the contract unambiguously required a 'macadam base course,' and the contractor's attempt to use 'bank run gravel' was not permitted, even considering alleged ambiguities or procedural issues.
• Roscoe-Ajax Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  499 F.2d 639· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the treatment of a controversy by the parties and the Board should be the primary factor in determining if it constitutes a single dispute for purposes of the S & E decision.
• Colonial Metals Co. v. The United States
  494 F.2d 1355· Ct. Cl.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a termination for convenience clause allows the government to terminate a contract to obtain a lower price, even if that price was known at the time of award, and that anticipatory profits are not recoverable in a termination for convenience settlement.
• Liles Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  455 F.2d 527· Ct. Cl.· 1972-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the removal of a subcontractor by the Contracting Officer constituted a compensable change under the contract's Changes Clause, and that the Board erred in dismissing claims related to the subcontractor's removal and the electrical work.
• Inland Empire Builders, Inc. v. The United States
  424 F.2d 1370· Ct. Cl.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that unconditional releases executed by the plaintiffs for four lease areas barred their claims arising from those areas, and that plaintiffs were responsible for increases in state sales taxes after the contract date.
• Dean Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  411 F.2d 1238· Ct. Cl.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Board's denial of further time extensions was supported by substantial evidence, and that the contracting officer's findings of fact, while a rebuttable admission, were not binding for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
• Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. The United States
  297 F.2d 546· Ct. Cl.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they were filed long after the six-year period had expired from the accrual of the cause of action.
• Topkis Bros. Co. v. The United States
  297 F.2d 536· Ct. Cl.· 1961-12-06 ·cited 14×
  Government-furnished property must be suitable for use in the manufacturing process, not just conform to specifications, to avoid liability for increased costs.
• M-R-S Mfg. Co. v. The United States
  492 F.2d 835· Ct. Cl.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 13×
  A government contractor's duty under the Truth in Negotiations Act to submit accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data cannot be waived by a government agent and requires either physical delivery of the data or making the government aware of its significance.
• De Matteo Constr. Co. v. The United States
  600 F.2d 1384· Ct. Cl.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a delay in contract award due to a bid protest, within the timeframes allowed by Postal Service regulations, does not constitute a constructive suspension of work entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment.
• Conrac Corp. v. The United States
  558 F.2d 994· Ct. Cl.· 1977-07-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the contractor was required to disclose its purchase history cards as cost or pricing data, and that the $8,050 refund was a significant sum subject to recoupment under the Truth in Negotiations Act.
• Dynalectron Corp. (pacific Division) v. The United States
  518 F.2d 594· Ct. Cl.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the contractor did not waive all claims of impossibility due to defective specifications, and therefore the default termination was improper.
• Nw. Marine Iron Works v. The United States
  493 F.2d 652· Ct. Cl.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims arising from maritime contracts, even if involving non-maritime elements, and must transfer such cases to a district court with admiralty jurisdiction.
• J. A. Maurer, Inc. v. The United States
  485 F.2d 588· Ct. Cl.· 1973-10-17 ·cited 12×
  A contractor who proposes and obtains leave to perform according to its own methods, especially when possessing superior expertise, assumes the risk of impossibility or technical difficulties, and cannot use these as an excuse for nonperformance.
• Nager Elec. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  442 F.2d 936· Ct. Cl.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the administrative determination of the credit due to the Government for deleted valves was incorrect because it failed to consider the contractor's actual and probable costs and the benefit of its bargain with its subcontractor.
• R.E.D.M. Corp. v. The United States
  428 F.2d 1304· Ct. Cl.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that defective contract specifications authorizing too broad a range of leaf metal thickness rendered the first contract claim valid, but the second contract claim was invalid due to the plaintiff's knowledge of the arming problem at the time of contracting.
• Rice v. The United States
  428 F.2d 1311· Ct. Cl.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a contract clause allowing a party to 'request' a price adjustment upon a significant variation in meals served is mandatory and automatic, not discretionary, and that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof of costs to warrant a different adjustment.
• Nat'l Steel & Shipbuilding Co. v. The United States
  419 F.2d 863· Ct. Cl.· 1969-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the administrative board lacked jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim and that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability for breach of contract due to the Federal Maritime Board's failure to exercise reasonable effort and diligence i
• Aerodex, Inc. v. The United States
  417 F.2d 1361· Ct. Cl.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government breached its duty by failing to ensure the commercial availability of a specified component or provide its material specifications, and by failing to provide adequate testing data.
• Tecon Corp. & Green Constr. Co. v. The United States
  411 F.2d 1262· Ct. Cl.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the specification for roller weight created a definite range, and the government's direction to exceed that range constituted a change entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment. The court also affirmed the board's decision regarding the tandem roller
• Paul Hardeman, Inc. v. The United States
  406 F.2d 1357· Ct. Cl.· 1969-02-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that increased costs incurred due to a changed condition, even if occurring during a period of delay, are not barred by the "Rice doctrine" if they are not delay damages and are directly caused by the changed condition. The contract's "Changed Conditions" clause al
• United States v. Ulvedal
  372 F.2d 31· 8th Cir.· 1967-02-08 ·cited 12×
  A contractor's failure to pursue administrative remedies under a contract's disputes clause, after receiving notice of the contracting officer's final decision, forecloses them from raising defenses in a subsequent government enforcement suit.
• T. F. Scholes, Inc. v. The United States
  357 F.2d 963· Ct. Cl.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the contractor was not entitled to an equitable adjustment under the 'changed conditions' clause, nor was the government liable for alleged breaches of contract, but the government was entitled to recover on its counterclaims for overpayment and unpaid taxes.
• N. Am. Corp. v. The United States
  706 F.2d 1212· Fed. Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to contracts entered into before its effective date, and the Federal Courts Improvement Act limits review to decisions made under that Act.
• The Singer Co. v. The United States
  568 F.2d 695· Ct. Cl.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the contractor failed to prove entitlement to additional compensation for the disputed claims.
• McCloskey & Co. v. The United States
  530 F.2d 374· Ct. Cl.· 1976-01-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over contract claims against the District of Columbia Armory Board because the contract was not one that could be satisfied out of appropriated funds, and Congress intended to exclude public funds from the stadium's construction.
• Monroe M. Tapper & Assocs. v. The United States
  514 F.2d 1003· Ct. Cl.· 1975-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The majority opinion erred by requiring the Board's discretionary decision to be supported by substantial evidence, thereby undermining the discretion previously recognized by this court.
• Victory Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  510 F.2d 1379· Ct. Cl.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government, as the proponent of an equitable adjustment, bore the burden of proving cost decreases solely attributable to quantity variations, and that the 1968 ASPR provision limited adjustments to such cost differences.
• Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. The United States
  511 F.2d 529· Ct. Cl.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the weighted guidelines for determining fair and reasonable profit were infeasible to apply to the plaintiff's contracts, and thus the plaintiff had a legal right to their application.