Among its other duties, the Defense Logistics Agency is charged with disposing of and re-purposing certain surplus military equipment. After several years of failing to keep up with such duties, the Government outsourced the work to a Contractor. With the RFP, the Government’s work estimate included: (1) historical workload data and (2) workload projections.
Soon after performance began, the Contractor encountered a significant backlog of work. No information about a backlog was included in the RFP or related communication. The Government refused to negotiate an equitable adjustment, denied the Contractor’s claim, and the Court of Federal Claims found no fault by the Government.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and held the Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.” Such information included the Government’s knowledge that there was a significant backlog of work facing the Contractor. The Government’s obligation to provide a “realistic estimate [including] the most current information available” doesn’t mean it must go out and create such information. Rather, to the extent such information exists, the Government must share it with the Contractor.
Although the Government’s behavior was only negligent (i.e., not intentional), it seems like a trick to withhold pertinent information while demanding the work be performed and refusing to pay for it.
Ultimately, the Contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract price and time for the backlog.
Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, 847 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]
Roads& Bridges | Confusing Waters
CONFUSING WATERS | A Supreme Court ruling leaves room for ambiguity
What happens when there may be a “significant nexus” between “adjacent” and/or […]
Roads & Bridges | Authority Defined
AUTHORITY DEFINED | The Law of Agency is Important to Understand
For any project, this Russian proverb is helpful: Doveryay, no proveryay – […]
Jurisdiction is Power
Not bad power, but the ability of a decision-maker (e.g., court) to decide which side is right (or which is more correct). […]
