Wunderlich Act

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

• Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. The United States
  587 F.2d 498· Ct. Cl.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the tax credit received by the plaintiff was a refund of 1968 franchise taxes and, under the contract terms, must be allocated to the 1968 cost base, not the 1971 base, despite plaintiff's arguments based on GAAP.
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. The United States
  585 F.2d 457· Ct. Cl.· 1978-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government is not liable for 'impact' costs incurred by the contractor due to changes in one contract affecting the performance of another, absent a cardinal change or express waiver.
• Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. The United States
  579 F.2d 622· Ct. Cl.· 1978-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contractor is charged with knowledge of trade usage and conventions in interpreting contract drawings, even if unfamiliar with them.
• E. Walters & Co., Inc. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 362· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contractor's failure to timely protest the government's use of an option clause, even if in violation of procurement regulations, constitutes a waiver and estops the contractor from later claiming damages.
• Blue Cross Ass'n & Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.C. v. The United States
  568 F.2d 1339· Ct. Cl.· 1978-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs, having already recovered the North Carolina franchise tax from their non-Government business through their premium rate structure, could not recover the same tax from the Government under cost-reimbursement contracts.
• Disc. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  554 F.2d 435· Ct. Cl.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals' decision upholding the default termination was supported by substantial evidence and permissible under the Wunderlich Act. The contractor's lack of progress was not excused by alleged difficulties with borrow sites, restaking, or
• Dynalectron Corp. v. The United States
  545 F.2d 736· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that legal fees incurred in defending a separate commercial venture are direct costs of that venture and not allocable to government contracts, even if the contractor argues a remote benefit to its overall business.
• Dairylea Coop., Inc. v. The United States
  535 F.2d 24· Ct. Cl.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that title and risk of loss did not pass to the buyer (CCC) because the butter was never delivered as required by the contract, specifically the issuance of a warehouse receipt.
• James A. Mann, Inc. v. The United States
  535 F.2d 51· Ct. Cl.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract was not ambiguous and clearly required the contractor to furnish and install the engine-generator, affirming the Board's decision.
• Artisan Elecs. Corp. v. The United States
  499 F.2d 606· Ct. Cl.· 1974-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's decision upholding the default termination was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the contract's default clause permitted termination of the entire contract.
• Doyle Shirt Mfg. Corp. v. The United States
  462 F.2d 1150· Ct. Cl.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government was not estopped from terminating the contract for default due to prior waivers, and the termination was not untimely.
• Max Bauer Meat Packer, Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 88· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's decision was legally correct, affirming partial recovery for the plaintiff due to the Government's unreasonable delay in rejecting a portion of the goods, but denying recovery for another portion based on plaintiff's agreement to the inspection pla
• Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. The United States
  434 F.2d 1371· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals could not properly find that the defendant sustained its burden of proving the plaintiff was responsible for the malfunctioning turbines, as the Board's reasoning was inadequate and infected by legal error.
• Cont'l Ore Corp. v. The United States
  423 F.2d 1248· Ct. Cl.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 2×
  Under a C. & F. contract, war risk surcharges imposed by the carrier are the seller's responsibility as a cost of transportation, not the buyer's.
• Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. The United States
  422 F.2d 1344· Ct. Cl.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the ASBCA's finding that only 50% of extra fill was compensable lacked substantial evidence, and that the ASBCA's findings regarding defective construction causing water damage were supported by substantial evidence.
• Datronics Eng'rs, Inc. v. The United States
  418 F.2d 1371· Ct. Cl.· 1969-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the default termination of the contract was proper and that the government's assessment of excess costs was correctly reduced by the ASBCA.
• Humphreys & Harding, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co.
  397 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the subcontractor was bound by the architect's determination of work scope and that the general contractor's administrative appeal process, not the subcontract's arbitration clause, was the applicable dispute resolution mechanism.
• Sec. Nat'l Bank OF Kan. City v. The United States
  397 F.2d 984· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 2×
  A contractor adopts an interpretation of a contract at their peril if it is not a reasonable resolution of an ambiguity and they do not consult the contracting officer. The court affirmed the denial of claims based on alleged misrepresentation and failure to alleviate flooding, f
• Gen. Bronze Corp. v. The United States
  338 F.2d 117· Ct. Cl.· 1964-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for additional compensation because the contracting officer's letter did not constitute a binding agreement or a written change order, and the plaintiff acted as a volunteer without a required written order
• Silverman Bros., Inc. v. United States
  324 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1963-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Wunderlich Act limits judicial review of administrative decisions on government contracts to the administrative record, and the disputes clause applies to disputes arising after contract completion.
• WM. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. United States
  292 F.2d 854· Ct. Cl.· 1961-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that disputes concerning the interpretation of contract specifications are questions of law, subject to judicial review, but that the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to an adjustment in unit price for increased ballast quantities.
• Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. The United States
  537 F.2d 400· Ct. Cl.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a subcontractor has no direct claim against the government for termination costs unless the government explicitly assumes responsibility, and such claims are generally subject to the prime contractor's obligations and potential offsets.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Polytron Co. v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1277· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 1×
  The court concurs in the result because the stipulation's terms were conflicting and inconsistent, necessitating rejection.
• Beacon OIL Co. v. The United States
  832 F.2d 593· Fed. Cir.· 1987-11-03
  The court held that Beacon Oil made a binding election to pursue its contract claims under the Contract Disputes Act, and the Board of Contract Appeals lacked jurisdiction to proceed under the contract's disputes clause.
• Teledyne Lewisburg v. The United States
  699 F.2d 1336· Fed. Cir.· 1983-02-14
  The dissenting judge believes the Claims Court erred in reversing the ASBCA decision, arguing that the government should be held liable for breach of warranty due to defective government-furnished model and drawings, despite disclaimers.
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. The United States
  671 F.2d 474· Ct. Cl.· 1982-02-10
  The court held that the cost-reimbursement termination clause, as modified, governs the determination of damages, and the cost-limitation provision does not convert the contract back to a fixed-price termination scenario. The government may recover excess reprocurement costs if t
• Piasecki Aircraft Corp. v. The United States
  667 F.2d 50· Ct. Cl.· 1981-12-02
  The court affirmed the trial judge's denial of the plaintiff's claim for conversion of a default termination to a termination for convenience, and affirmed the grant of the defendant's counterclaim for progress payments, but reversed on the issue of interest on those payments.
• S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. The United States
  661 F.2d 170· Ct. Cl.· 1981-09-23
  The court held that direct access to the court under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 was unavailable because the claim was not pending before the contracting officer on the Act's effective date, and absent a clear showing of a cardinal change, administrative remedies must be ex
• Int'l Elecs. Corp. v. The United States
  646 F.2d 496· Ct. Cl.· 1981-04-08
  The court held that the trial judge's report, as modified, was adopted, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and denying the defendant's motion.
• Crf-A Joint Venture OF Cemco, Inc. v. The United States
  624 F.2d 1054· Ct. Cl.· 1980-06-18
  The court held that a contractor's acquiescence in a contracting officer's misinterpretation of an IFB, even if arbitrary, does not bind the government to pay for extra work if the contractor did not expressly protest.
• Nw. BAG Corp. v. The United States
  619 F.2d 896· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-16
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals' decisions regarding the invalidity of the initial 10,000,000 bag contract, the absence of misrepresentation, and the propriety of the termination for default on the 7,400,000 bag contract were supported by substantial evidence an
• Consol. Molded Prods. Corp. v. The United States
  600 F.2d 793· Ct. Cl.· 1979-06-15
  The court affirmed the Board's denial of the plaintiff's claim, holding that a short-term unavailability of materials due to an energy crisis did not render the contract impossible to perform and that the 'Default' clause provided the exclusive remedy.
• Turnkey Enters., Inc. v. The United States
  597 F.2d 750· Ct. Cl.· 1979-04-18
  The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's claim for an equitable adjustment under the Differing Site Conditions Article, finding that the unavailability of water due to drought was an act of God and not a changed condition.
• Robert L. Guyler Co. v. The United States
  593 F.2d 406· Ct. Cl.· 1979-02-21
  The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's claim for an equitable adjustment, holding that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or legally erroneous.
• Teledyne McCormick-Selph v. The United States
  588 F.2d 808· Ct. Cl.· 1978-12-13
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals erred by applying too high a standard of proof, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an equitable adjustment for costs incurred due to defective government specifications.
• Mfrs. Hanover Tr. Co. v. The United States
  590 F.2d 893· Ct. Cl.· 1978-12-13
  An assignee lacks standing to seek review under the Wunderlich Act if they are not a bona fide assignee under the Assignment of Claims Act, meaning the advanced funds were not used for the contract's performance.
• Trans World Airlines v. The United States
  587 F.2d 44· Ct. Cl.· 1978-11-15
  The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, holding that severance pay costs were not reimbursable under the contract.
• Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. The United States
  549 F.2d 767· Ct. Cl.· 1977-02-23
  The court held that where a government contractor reasonably relied on a Bureau of Aeronautics Representative's procurement endorsement signifying reasonable business judgment, and the Navy Cost Inspection Service did not subsequently object, the contractor is entitled to reimbur
• Gunnell Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-01-28
  A quorum of the Contract Appeals Board must include at least one member with practical experience in government contract administration, not solely lawyers.
• Varo, Inc. v. The United States
  548 F.2d 953· Ct. Cl.· 1977-01-26
  The court held that the contract was ambiguous regarding who bore the cost of first-article testing, and thus the doctrine of contra proferentem applied, preventing the government from claiming a price reduction. The court also held that a price reduction was not warranted for wa
• Cooper v. United States
  546 F.2d 870· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-27
  The court held that the National Transportation Safety Board properly applied the doctrine of res judicata to deny reconsideration of a prior decision denying an airman's medical certificate.
• Gulf W. Precision Eng'g Co. v. The United States
  543 F.2d 125· Ct. Cl.· 1976-10-20
  The court held that the plaintiff assumed the risk of not meeting performance specifications when it deviated from advisory specifications, and therefore is not entitled to recover costs for rejected preproduction models.
• J. R. Youngdale Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  536 F.2d 369· Ct. Cl.· 1976-06-16
  The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the petition because the ASBCA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive a 6-day delay in filing an appeal.
• Norman M. Giller & Assocs. v. The United States
  535 F.2d 37· Ct. Cl.· 1976-05-12
  The court held that a contractor's claim for constructive compensation for administrative services rendered by its sole proprietors is not reimbursable under the contract if no cost was actually incurred or paid.
• Norcoast Constructors, Inc. v. The United States
  477 F.2d 929· Ct. Cl.· 1973-05-11
  The court affirmed the ASBCA's quantum decision, finding the award of $40,000 for the diesel fuel storage tank was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
• Phillips Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  440 F.2d 429· Ct. Cl.· 1971-04-16
  The court held that plaintiff is entitled to recover only the $25,877.25 in excess interest allowed by the Board and not contested by the defendant.
• D. J. McQuestion and Sons v. The United States
  439 F.2d 181· Ct. Cl.· 1971-03-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to an equitable adjustment under the "changed conditions" provision of the contract, as the evidence did not show materially different subsurface conditions or a breach by the defendant.
• Cosmo Constr. Co. & the First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Tulsa v. The United States
  439 F.2d 160· Ct. Cl.· 1971-03-19
  The court held that a claim for delay damages, dismissed by the administrative board for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a specific contract clause, is not precluded from judicial review and must be remanded for trial.
• Charles T. Parker Constr. Co. & Pac. Concrete Co. v. The United States
  433 F.2d 771· Ct. Cl.· 1970-11-13
  The court held that the agency's decision denying the contractor's claim for changed conditions was supported by substantial evidence and correct as a matter of law, and therefore the contractor was not entitled to recover.
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. The United States
  410 F.2d 404· Ct. Cl.· 1969-05-16
  The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover housing project costs because they were not specifically included as allowable costs in the contract and there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that such costs were unreasonable.