Wunderlich Act

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

• The Boeing Co. v. The United States
  480 F.2d 854· Ct. Cl.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the amendment to ASPR § 15-205.41(a) clearly prohibited the allowance of personal property taxes on commercial inventory as a cost of performing government contracts for contracts subject to that revision.
• Merando, Inc. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 598· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that where there is a discrepancy between painting schedules and finish schedules, the painting schedules, as part of the specifications, govern, and a contractor is obligated to inquire about obvious discrepancies.
• Sperry Rand Corp. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 1168· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a fixed-price incentive contract for a developed, proven design does not entitle the contractor to reformation for unexpected R&D costs due to performance issues, as the contractor assumed the inherent risks.
• The J. B. Williams Co. v. The United States
  450 F.2d 1379· Ct. Cl.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable adjustment in the contract price for redesigning the meters to conform to specifications, as their interpretation of the contract was reasonable under the circumstances.
• H. N. Bailey & Assocs. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 387· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the termination for default was improper because the government failed to strictly adhere to the contract's First Article Approval clause, thereby waiving its right to terminate.
• Pac. Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
  436 F.2d 461· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract documents did not contain sufficient indications to support a claim for changed conditions or breach of warranty of design, and that the plaintiff could not reasonably rely on the contract documents to infer a balanced project.
• S & E Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
  433 F.2d 1373· Ct. Cl.· 1970-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court should not consider the alleged appeal filed by the Attorney General because there is no controversy between the parties and the AEC's decision has not been reversed or changed.
• Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. The United States
  432 F.2d 801· Ct. Cl.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 10×
• Tecon Corp. v. The United States
  411 F.2d 1271· Ct. Cl.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the Board of Contract Appeals' decision denying the contractor's claim for equitable adjustment.
• Lenry, Inc. v. The United States
  297 F.2d 550· Ct. Cl.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract did not contain an implied warranty guaranteeing the continued availability of city streets for access, even when rendered unusable by an act of God.
• H. L. YOH Co., Inc. v. United States
  288 F.2d 493· Ct. Cl.· 1961-04-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a unilateral reduction in the volume of work under a time and materials contract can create government liability for increased costs to the contractor, even if the contractor still realizes a profit.
• The Seminole Nation of Okla. v. The United States
  498 F.2d 1368· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Indian Claims Commission correctly vacated its prior favorable ruling and dismissed the appellant's petition, as no vested property right in mineral royalties was created in the Seminole Nation by the 1898 Agreement.
• Broome Constr., Inc. v. The United States
  492 F.2d 829· Ct. Cl.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of contract claim for delays and that the board's decision denying remission of liquidated damages was binding.
• Churchill Chem. Corp. v. The United States
  602 F.2d 358· Ct. Cl.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Board's determination that the assessment of excess reprocurement costs was proper, finding the government fulfilled its duty to mitigate damages and that the plaintiff's bid on reprocurement was nonresponsive.
• Applied Devices Corp. v. The United States
  591 F.2d 635· Ct. Cl.· 1979-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the ASBCA's decision regarding the Wunderlich Act review was correct, the plaintiff is entitled to equitable reformation of the contract's cancellation ceiling due to the government's failure to realistically estimate non-recurring costs.
• Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. The United States
  579 F.2d 586· Ct. Cl.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court should not dismiss any part of the petition and should remand all parts of the claim to the NASA Board for determination of quantum.
• Leavell v. The United States
  530 F.2d 878· Ct. Cl.· 1976-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an equitable adjustment is available under the Suspension of Work clause for an unreasonable suspension caused by appropriation cut-offs, even if the contractor accelerated its schedule.
• Merando, Inc. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 603· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals correctly interpreted the contract specifications, finding them clear and unambiguous regarding concrete pouring limitations.
• John McSHAIN, Inc. v. The United States
  462 F.2d 489· Ct. Cl.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the contract specifications and drawings, when considered with industry trade practice, permitted the inclusion of the strength of the concrete floor fill in the design calculations for precast, prestressed tee members.
• Jules Teitelbaum for Victory Elecs., Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 72· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The court adopted the trial commissioner's opinion, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Count II to the extent indicated, denying it otherwise, granting defendant's motion to dismiss Count I, denying defendant's motion for judgment on its counterclaim, and staying
• Eggers & Higgins & Edwin A. Keeble Assocs. v. The United States
  403 F.2d 225· Ct. Cl.· 1968-11-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for acceleration costs was untimely filed, and the government was prejudiced by the significant delay in notification, thus barring the claim.
• Nat'l Movers Co. Inc. v. The United States
  386 F.2d 999· Ct. Cl.· 1967-11-09 ·cited 8×
  A binding contract was formed when the government timely awarded the contract to National Movers, and National Movers breached the contract by refusing to perform.
• Nello L. Teer Co. v. The United States
  348 F.2d 533· Ct. Cl.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The Secretary of Labor's wage determination was not final and conclusive because it was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence when considering the entire record.
• Allied Paint & Color Works, Inc. v. United States
  309 F.2d 133· 2d Cir.· 1962-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly limited its review to the administrative record and correctly interpreted the contracts, finding the contractor bore the risk of loss for paint destroyed by fire.
• Seaboard Lumber Co. v. The United States
  903 F.2d 1560· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 6×
  The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and its procedures, including adjudication in Article I courts and waiver of jury trial rights, are constitutionally permissible conditions on the government's waiver of sovereign immunity for contract disputes.
• Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc. v. The United States
  699 F.2d 1383· Fed. Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a settlement agreement will not be set aside for economic duress merely because one party was under financial pressure, absent proof of wrongful conduct by the other party that left no reasonable alternative.
• John T. Brady & Co. v. The United States
  693 F.2d 1380· Fed. Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that exceptions to the Buy American Act can be granted after a contract has been awarded, and the Board erroneously ruled otherwise.
• S. W. Elecs. & Mfg. Corp. v. The United States
  655 F.2d 1078· Ct. Cl.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for rework costs incurred before discovering the defective specification, it could not recover for units produced after the contracting officer instructed it to use a different, working switch.
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  639 F.2d 732· Ct. Cl.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the existence of an unresolved inspection claim did not suspend final payment, and the contractor could not assert new, unrelated claims after final payment occurred.
• SUN City Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. The United States
  624 F.2d 997· Ct. Cl.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Hearing Officer's first decision, allowing a hospital to include the fair market value of donated services (waived overhead and profit) in its asset basis for Medicare reimbursement, was consistent with applicable law and regulations. Therefore, the second
• Petrofsky v. The United States
  616 F.2d 494· Ct. Cl.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the Government interfered with contract performance by withholding information, and that the termination of the contract was not arbitrary or capricious.
• United States v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal.
  618 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Acting Secretary of the Navy had the statutory authority to include Standard's section 7R under the unit plan contract, but that summary judgment on the fairness of the terms and conditions was improper due to an incomplete administrative record.
• Nat'l Line Co., Inc. v. The United States
  607 F.2d 978· Ct. Cl.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 6×
  A unilateral mistake in bid based on an error of judgment regarding production capability, plant space, or personnel is not grounds for reformation or rescission of a government contract, especially when the government did not know or should not have known of the mistake.
• Dairy Sales Corp. v. The United States
  593 F.2d 1002· Ct. Cl.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 6×
  Anticipated profits are not recoverable under a contract terminated for the convenience of the government when no work has been performed on the terminated portion. Claims for costs must be supported by sufficient evidence of value and necessity.
• Jet Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  531 F.2d 538· Ct. Cl.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Board of Contract Appeals' decision, holding that the contractor failed to propose units meeting contract specifications and the government properly exercised its contractual rights.
• Franklin E. Penny Co. v. The United States
  524 F.2d 668· Ct. Cl.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a listing of Government-approved suppliers in a solicitation warrants their technical ability but not their willingness or ability to perform within the contract's timeframe, and that subcontractor delays do not excuse a prime contractor's failure to meet deli
• Stock & Grove, Inc. v. The United States
  493 F.2d 629· Ct. Cl.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's designation of a quarry as a Type B source, coupled with representations about its potential yield, did not absolve the government of responsibility under the Changed Conditions clause when the quarry proved inadequate.
• Glasgow Assocs. v. The United States
  495 F.2d 765· Ct. Cl.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Government's actions did not proximately cause the plaintiff's additional costs, and therefore, did not constitute a breach of contract.
• Monroe Garment Co., Inc. v. The United States
  488 F.2d 989· Ct. Cl.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and its conclusions of law were correct, affirming the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
• Astro Sci. Corp. v. The United States
  471 F.2d 624· Ct. Cl.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the preproduction sample must be treated as an end product, and the standard of acceptability for end products applies, affirming the Board's decision to uphold the default termination.
• ITT Gilfillan, Inc. v. The United States
  471 F.2d 1382· Ct. Cl.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the novation agreement, supported by consideration of the government's forbearance in asserting anti-assignment statutes, barred reimbursement for corporate service and research fund charges incurred by the newly acquired subsidiary, as these costs arose from
• Roscoe-Ajax Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 55· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals erred in dismissing the sixth cause of action without determining if a changed condition existed and in dismissing the seventh cause of action as untimely without proper consideration of the contracting officer's final decision an
• The Brezina Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 372· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 6×
  When a government contract is ambiguous and the contractor's interpretation is reasonable, the contractor's interpretation will be adopted unless the parties' intent is otherwise affirmatively revealed.
• Briscoe v. The United States
  442 F.2d 953· Ct. Cl.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Claims affirmed the Board of Contract Appeals' decision regarding a changed condition, but found the Board erred in reducing the equitable adjustment based on the contractor's alleged lack of diligence.
• L T V Aerospace Corp. v. The United States
  425 F.2d 1237· Ct. Cl.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the novation agreement's language precluded a "total cost" approach for the contractor to recover increased depreciation costs, and also disallowed offsetting cost savings against cost increases.
• Loral Elecs. Corp. v. The United States
  409 F.2d 578· Ct. Cl.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's petition was limited to five specific contracts and could not be amended to include other contracts, nor could damages be awarded for claims arising from those other contracts.
• Scherr & McDermott, Inc. v. The United States
  360 F.2d 966· Ct. Cl.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's failure to conduct timely audits excused the plaintiff from the requirement of obtaining prior approval for an increase in the contract's cost limitation, entitling the plaintiff to recover unreimbursed overhead costs.
• United States v. Hammer Contracting Corp. & Aetna Ins. Co.
  331 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a contractor's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under a contract's 'Disputes' clause bars judicial review of the merits of the dispute.
• Blake Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  597 F.2d 1357· Ct. Cl.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the contract specifications did not override the option in the federal specifications allowing for wrought fabrication when cast fabrication was specified, and therefore the rejection of the Falcon lockset was wrongful.
• Vista Sci. Corp. v. The United States
  808 F.2d 50· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Claims Court's decision, upholding the Board of Contract Appeals' rejection of the contractor's claims for equitable adjustment.