Martin Edwards & Associates, Inc.
Martin Edwards & Associates, Inc. appealed a government motion to dismiss its breach of contract claim, which was based on a release executed during a no-cost termination for convenience. The Board denied the government's motion, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Material Facts
- The Army awarded MEA a contract for delivery and installation of washers and dryers at Ft. Bragg, Simmons Army Airfield, and Camp Mackall, NC.
- The contract's performance work statement specified the hours of operation for services to be performed.
- MEA requested an extension to the 45-day phase-in period due to delays in equipment delivery, which the government initially agreed to but later retained the original phase-in period.
- The government denied MEA's request to work weekends due to budget constraints for overtime monitoring.
- The CO terminated the contract for cause after MEA's assurances lacked specifics.
- MEA requested to convert the termination for cause to a no-cost termination for convenience, which was finalized via bilateral modification.
- The no-cost termination included a broad release language from MEA.
- MEA filed a certified claim for $850,000 for breach of contract and unlawful termination for convenience, asserting bad faith by the government.
- The government denied MEA's claim, stating there was no bad faith in the termination.
Parties
- Appellant
- Martin Edwards & Associates, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W91247-11-D-0004
Full Legal Analysis
Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.
Holding & Legal Reasoning
The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.
Issues Presented
Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.
Quantum & Recovery
The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.
Verified Authorities & Citations
Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.
Practitioner Takeaways
Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.
Similar Cases
Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.
Citation Graph
An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.
Related Decisions
Same Judge
- Applied Technical Systems, Inc.No. 58072March 6, 2014
- Bulova Technologies Ordnance Systems LLCNo. 57406January 28, 2014
- Stephens Construction and Concrete, Inc.No. 58670January 2, 2014
- New Iraq Ahd CompanyNo. 58800December 17, 2013
- Dace Enterprises, LLCNo. 57984November 1, 2013
- Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.No. 58578September 9, 2013
Same Year
- Gray Personnel, Inc.No. 54652, 55833December 31, 2012
- ECC, InternationalNo. 55781December 28, 2012
- DODS, Inc.December 18, 2012
- Raytheon CompanyNo. 57576, 57679December 17, 2012
- TMS Envirocon, Inc.December 12, 2012
- The Public Warehousing CompanyDecember 3, 2012
Same Issue
- Bodell Construction CompanyNo. 63517-ADR, 63850-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- WSP USA Solutions Inc.No. 62674September 1, 2026
- Mvation Worldwide Inc.No. 64633August 18, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026