60581

UNIT Company

February 12, 2018Judge Newsom
Denied / Government PrevailedDefective Specifications

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
Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

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

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.