UNIT Company
UNIT Company appealed a denial of its claim for costs incurred due to alleged defective specifications in a government contract. The ASBCA denied the government's motion for summary judgment, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Material Facts
- The government awarded Task Order 0001 to UNIT on 11 May 2011 for the construction of a battle command training center.
- The contract was for a firm-fixed price of $20,025,555.00.
- The contract incorporated FAR 52.236-21, which requires prompt submission of discrepancies to the contracting officer.
- UNIT subcontracted with Klebs Mechanical to perform mechanical work, including installation of air handling units (AHUs) and computer room air conditioning units (CRACs).
- UNIT asserted that the contract drawings lacked necessary engineering design information for the installation of the AHUs and CRACs.
- UNIT and Klebs submitted multiple requests for information (RFIs) to the government regarding the AHUs and CRACs.
- The government responded to the RFIs but did not acknowledge any deficiencies in the specifications.
- UNIT submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) on 28 July 2014, which was the first notice the contracting officer received regarding the alleged deficiencies.
- The contracting officer denied the claim on 19 February 2016, leading to the appeal.
Parties
- Appellant
- UNIT Company
- Respondent Agency
- U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
- Contract Number
- W911KB-07-D-0014
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
- The Boeing CompanyNo. 58030, 58593, 58594, 58660, 59212, 59220, 59813, 60376, 60403, 60411, 60522, 60736August 20, 2018
- Telford Aviation, Inc.No. 60040, 60876July 11, 2018
- Environmental Chemical CorporationNo. 60577June 15, 2018
- ECCI-C METAG, JVNo. 59667June 1, 2018
- KiewitPhelpsNo. 60850May 23, 2018
- New South Construction Company, Inc.No. 61314May 23, 2018
Same Year
- AT&T Corp.No. 61868December 21, 2018
- Gilbane Federal Joint VentureNo. 61590December 21, 2018
- WIT Associates, Inc.No. 61547December 19, 2018
- Avis Industries, Inc.No. 61609December 19, 2018
- Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc.No. 61209, 61210, 61211, 61212 61213, 61214December 19, 2018
- J.F. Brennan Co., Inc.No. 60737December 19, 2018
Same Issue
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- Hensel Phelps Construction CompanyNo. 64327September 14, 2026
- Relyant Global LLCNo. 64032, 64111, 64230, 64231, 64517August 24, 2026
- Warrior Construction Services, Inc.No. 64497August 7, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026
- Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p.A Joint VentureNo. 64038, 64336, 64428July 16, 2026