Anthony and Gordon Construction Co.
Anthony and Gordon Construction Co. appealed a contracting officer's final decision denying its claim for additional costs due to alleged defective design specifications provided by the Navy. The Board denied the Navy's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Material Facts
- The Navy awarded A&G contract No. N69450-13-C-0754 for repairs and renovation at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas.
- A&G alleged that the Navy provided defective design specifications for two mechanical rooms, leading to additional costs.
- A&G submitted a request for equitable adjustment for $858,992, which was denied by the contracting officer.
- A&G's certified claim sought $3,990,263 in excess costs over its original bid for mechanical work.
- The Navy's engineer concluded that A&G's claim had merit regarding design errors but that the quantum costs had no merit.
- DCAA issued an audit report questioning A&G's claim based on the total cost method used for calculating damages.
- A&G's complaint sought $2,834,205.65, which included costs for delays and subcontractor payments.
Parties
- Appellant
- Anthony and Gordon Construction Co.
- Respondent Agency
- Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast
- Contracting Agency
- Navy
- Contract Number
- N69450-13-C-0754
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
- Cardinal Contracting Co., LLCNo. 62872July 30, 2026
- PDO Ahusaka Joint Venture LLCNo. 64490July 23, 2026
- Al Ghanim Combined Group W.L.L.No. 62321, 62984May 18, 2026
- EFS Ebrex SarlNo. 64073-ADR, 64074-ADR, 64075-ADR, 64194-ADR, 64195-ADR, 64196-ADR, 64197-ADRApril 30, 2026
- Endure Industries, Inc.No. 64064March 23, 2026
- Sheffield Barbers, LLCNo. 62367February 26, 2026
Same Year
- Cellular Materials International, Inc.No. 61408December 27, 2021
- Meltech Corporation, Inc.No. 61706, 61768December 17, 2021
- Telos CorporationNo. 62950December 16, 2021
- General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.No. 62180-ADRDecember 13, 2021
- Adjuvant/Capital, LLCNo. 62760December 13, 2021
- Veteran Facility Services, LLCNo. 61855, 61983, 62386December 9, 2021
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