Wunderlich Act

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

• Universal Restoration, Inc. v. The United States
  798 F.2d 1400· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 4×
• Collins Int'l Serv. Co. v. The United States
  744 F.2d 812· Fed. Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Navy owed no legal duty to clarify wage classifications because the authority to make such determinations was vested in the Department of Labor by statute.
• In re Gary Aircraft Corp. v. United States
  698 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court improperly exercised its jurisdiction by liquidating government contract claims instead of deferring to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).
• Hoel-Steffen Constr. Co. v. The United States
  684 F.2d 843· Ct. Cl.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a contracting officer's refusal to substitute subcontractors was arbitrary and capricious, and that the exculpatory clause did not preclude recovery for such arbitrary actions.
• Haney v. The United States
  676 F.2d 584· Ct. Cl.· 1982-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the government's actions regarding contract interpretation and the denial of claims did not constitute bad faith, and that the ambiguity in the contract was properly construed against the government as the drafter.
• Johnson Controls, Inc. v. The United States
  671 F.2d 1312· Ct. Cl.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to specifically and forthrightly disclose a known drawing discrepancy prior to award constituted an unreasonable assumption of risk, barring recovery for the base contract.
• Chem. Tech., Inc. v. The United States
  645 F.2d 934· Ct. Cl.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the potential for significant reservist training, which was known or should have been known, constituted a constructive change entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment beyond the volume variation clause.
• Laka Tool & Stamping Co., Inc. v. The United States
  639 F.2d 738· Ct. Cl.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the March 30 agreement was an accord and satisfaction but did not bar the claim for premodification costs incurred due to an impossible specification, and that the default termination was proper as the modified contract was not impossible or commercially impra
• Franchi Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  609 F.2d 984· Ct. Cl.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract's order of precedence clause automatically resolves discrepancies between specifications and drawings, and a contractor is entitled to rely on it, even in cases of patent conflict, unless the conflict is within a category of documents, not between
• Monroe M. Tapper & Assocs. v. The United States
  602 F.2d 311· Ct. Cl.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract's specific section on site utilities clearly permitted backfilling with earth, and other sections requiring gravel did not apply to utility trenches, thus the contract was not patently ambiguous.
• Fruehauf Corp. v. The United States
  587 F.2d 486· Ct. Cl.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals erred in denying the contractor's claim for equitable adjustment, as the Suspension of Work clause can apply even without government fault when delays are unreasonable.
• S. A. Healy Co. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 299· Ct. Cl.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 'funds available' clause does not shield the government from liability when the agency itself requests funding grossly inadequate to support the approved construction program.
• The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & GoCorp, Inc. v. The United States
  558 F.2d 577· Ct. Cl.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's recommended decision, adopting it as the basis for judgment.
• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The United States
  553 F.2d 651· Ct. Cl.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Board of Contract Appeals' decision, holding that the contract's terms unambiguously placed the risk of increased bunker fuel costs on the carrier and did not provide for rate escalation.
• Wickham Contracting Co., Inc. v. The United States
  546 F.2d 395· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, having confirmed its bid after becoming aware of a drawing scale error, assumed the risk of increased costs and was not entitled to a contract price adjustment.
• S.O.G. of Arkansas v. The United States
  546 F.2d 367· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 4×
  A contractor who fails to seek clarification of a patent ambiguity in government bid documents before bidding cannot recover for increased costs incurred due to the government's interpretation of the ambiguity.
• Novid Co. Ltd. v. The United States
  535 F.2d 5· Ct. Cl.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the contract sued upon was not one that could obligate appropriated public funds, as it was strictly limited to a foreign government's loan account.
• Consol. Diesel Elec. Co. v. The United States
  533 F.2d 556· Ct. Cl.· 1976-04-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's technical proposal, which included an 'option clause' allowing for the final choice of engine 'family' combination, was a single proposal with four combinations, not four separate proposals, and thus the plaintiff was not limited to the initial
• The Hicks Corp. v. The United States
  487 F.2d 520· Ct. Cl.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, dismissing the plaintiff's petition, entering judgment for the defendant on its first counterclaim, and remanding the remaining counterclaims for further proceedings.
• Fed. Elec. Corp. v. The United States
  486 F.2d 1377· Ct. Cl.· 1973-10-25 ·cited 4×
• Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. The United States
  485 F.2d 584· Ct. Cl.· 1973-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in disallowing royalty costs as setoffs based on an unsubstantiated finding of intentional understatement.
• Merando, Inc. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 601· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The contractor is not entitled to damages for work performed outside the contract limit line because the discrepancy was obvious and required a pre-bid inquiry.
• Patton Wrecking & Demolition Co., Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  465 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-08 ·cited 4×
  A government contractor must exhaust contractually established dispute resolution procedures for claims of anticipatory breach, even if the contract language has been amended to broaden the scope of disputes covered.
• Carl M. Halvorson, Inc. v. The United States
  461 F.2d 1337· Ct. Cl.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that delays caused by defective government drawings are compensable under the Suspension of Work clause, regardless of negligence, and that the Board of Contract Appeals erred in denying recovery for such delays.
• Corbetta Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  461 F.2d 1330· Ct. Cl.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract specifications did not unambiguously require the perimeter cofferdam to function as a permanent water cut-off wall below subgrade, and therefore, requiring the contractor to perform such repairs constituted extra work.
• Litton Sys., Inc. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 392· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Government must provide adequate notice before retroactively changing a contractor's G&A expense allocation method, and that notice was provided on December 3, 1962.
• The Beryllium Corp. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 362· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 4×
• Astronautics Corp. of Am. v. The United States
  436 F.2d 430· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the termination for default was proper because the plaintiff failed to produce acceptable pre-production samples according to the controlling specifications, and the ASBCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
• Leavell-Morrison-Knudsen-Hardeman v. The United States
  436 F.2d 451· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the directive to insulate flexible connectors constituted a constructive change order, entitling the plaintiff to an equitable adjustment in the contract price.
• Ets-Hokin Corp. & Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. The United States
  420 F.2d 716· Ct. Cl.· 1970-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contracting officer and the Board of Contract Appeals erred in requiring the contractor to install a more expensive fire detection system than what was objectively required by the contract specifications, and that the contractor was entitled to an equitabl
• Emerson-Sack-Warner Corp. v. The United States
  416 F.2d 1335· Ct. Cl.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Modification No. 4 did not constitute an accord and satisfaction, and therefore the contractor's claim for reworking the first aid boxes was not barred.
• Panoramic Studios, Inc. v. The United States
  413 F.2d 1156· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to proceed with the projection slide set after being advised to do so constituted abandonment, and that the government did not waive the delivery schedule for the relief model despite delays.
• Burnett Constr. Co. v. The United States
  413 F.2d 563· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $18,902.31 withheld by the defendant, but the plaintiff's claim for $3,720 in increased labor costs was properly denied.
• Gibbs v. The United States
  358 F.2d 972· Ct. Cl.· 1966-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract language required plaintiffs to perform inspection and supervision services for the agreed lump sum fees throughout the entire construction period, regardless of its duration.
• The Singer Co. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 905· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately disclose accurate, complete, and current labor cost data, entitling the government to a price reduction.
• Granite Constr. Co. v. The United States
  962 F.2d 998· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Corps' demand for strict compliance and removal of waterstop, despite its substantial adequacy and the economic waste involved, was arbitrary and capricious, entitling the contractor to damages.
• Sw. Marine OF SAN Francisco, Inc. v. The United States
  896 F.2d 532· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction over appeals arising from maritime contracts, even if they are otherwise subject to the Contract Disputes Act.
• Murdock Mach. & Eng'g Co. of Utah v. The United States
  873 F.2d 1410· Fed. Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court should dismiss appeal 20409 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was not pending before the contracting officer on the effective date of the Contract Disputes Act.
• Sperry Corp. v. The United States
  845 F.2d 965· Fed. Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's exercise of an option to purchase additional items under a procurement contract was timely because final acceptance of the initial item occurred on March 20, 1978, not earlier as Sperry contended.
• Gevyn Constr. Corp. v. The United States
  827 F.2d 752· Fed. Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contractor cannot recover "imputed" interest on equity capital used for extra work, nor can it recover interest on funds borrowed by a subcontractor if the borrowing was necessitated by the contractor's wrongful withholding, not government action.
• Grumman Ohio Corp. v. Dole
  776 F.2d 338· D.C. Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that UMTA was not obligated to provide Grumman with the full arbitral forum and procedures requested, as UMTA had no contractual duty and no basis for equitable estoppel.
• Se. Airways Corp. v. The United States
  673 F.2d 368· Ct. Cl.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that financial incapacity, not caused by factors beyond the contractor's control, is not an excuse for contract default, and affirmed the Postal Service's termination of the contracts.
• Norair Eng'g Corp. v. The United States
  666 F.2d 546· Ct. Cl.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contractor finishing a project within the contract time plus excusable delays is not disqualified from claiming acceleration costs, and that government letters expressing concern about progress can constitute an order to accelerate.
• Schnip Bldg. Co. v. The United States
  645 F.2d 950· Ct. Cl.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of differing site conditions as required by the contract, and that the government lacked constructive notice.
• Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
  643 F.2d 729· Ct. Cl.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court's ultimate legal authority relied upon is objected to, with the proper foundation for the decision being the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
• Burroughs Corp. v. The United States
  634 F.2d 516· Ct. Cl.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Postal Service's insistence on a specific delivery sequence, which caused plaintiff to incur penalties, was improper because the contract did not strictly require it, and plaintiff's proposed alternatives adequately mitigated any risk.
• Hercules Inc. v. The United States
  626 F.2d 832· Ct. Cl.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contractor cannot recover G&A expenses by employing a usage basis of depreciation in the cost of sales base for cost-reimbursable contracts when it deliberately understated depreciation on fixed-price contracts for competitive advantage.
• Fischbach & Moore Int'l Corp. v. The United States
  617 F.2d 223· Ct. Cl.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 2×
  Agency heads cannot refuse to accept determinations of agency boards of contract appeals that are favorable to contractors, as these decisions are final and binding under the Wunderlich Act and the Disputes clause, absent fraud or bad faith.
• Kisco Co., Inc. v. The United States
  610 F.2d 742· Ct. Cl.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the April 7, 1970 notice, while procedurally defective for a default termination, must be treated as a partial termination for the convenience of the Government. The court reversed the Secretary's decision regarding Count I.
• Coley Props. Corp. v. The United States
  593 F.2d 380· Ct. Cl.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Changes Clause in the contract applied to both the postal and tower portions of the construction, entitling the plaintiff to an equitable adjustment for increased costs on the tower. However, lost rents and interest on construction loans were not recoverab