CBCA 1185

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company

Jun 6, 2008Judge DanielsDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Not published in the listingGranted in part

Key Facts

Appellant
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Judge
Daniels
Case number
CBCA 1185
Decided
Jun 6, 2008The decision states Jun 6, 2008 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Not published in the listingThe Board's year tables for 2007 through 2014 carry no Type column, so no disposition was published for this decision. It is not missing data and nothing is inferred from the document.
Law firm for the appellant
Alber Crafton, PSC
Outcome
Granted in part
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

Termination for default

Topics are derived from each decision's own text by keyword rules, not a classification by the Board. A decision matching several topics carries all of them, so topic counts sum above the number of decisions.

Appearances

For the appellant
Phillip G. Alber
Alber Crafton, PSC
Troy, MI
For the respondent
Charlma J. Quarles
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC
Decision PDF (cbca.gov) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act casesThe Board's year listing this row was read fromThe decision document is hosted by the Board itself, so it is an official copy, and the Board's own Contract Disputes Act case listing is the citable source. The topics, the disposition and the appearances above are read deterministically from the decision's own words; no model is involved.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the CBCA workspace: a grounded decision brief drafted from the Board's own words, the Insights dashboard over the whole corpus, and the filtered browser.

CBCA Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief on this decision, drafted from the captured text with every quote and authority checked against it.

Insights

Who prevails before the Board, by topic and by judge, with every denominator visible: merits rulings, not decisions.

Browse with Filters

The whole corpus by year, decision type, topic, judge and disposition, searchable across the decisions' own text.

Full Decision

Full text of the decision3 pages, 4,220 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Jun 6, 2008 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

1 authority read from this decision's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Other statutes1

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved. Statutes, regulations, the acts these forums argue by name, and cases at the board, this office or the Comptroller General are recognized; any other citation form is left out rather than guessed at, so this is a floor on what the decision cites.

GRANTED IN PART: June 6, 2008

CBCA 1185

STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

Phillip G. Alber of Alber Crafton, PSC, Troy, MI, counsel for Appellant.

The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.

Charlma J. Quarles, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), SOMERS, and KULLBERG.

DANIELS, Board Judge.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) terminated for default a contract under which Edge Construction Company (Edge) was to perform the work necessary for Gravesite Development Phase 1 at the Great Lakes National Cemetery in Holly, Michigan. Edge’s surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto), assumed responsibility for completion of the project pursuant to a “Tender Agreement with Release” which was signed by the VA, State Auto, and State Auto’s completion contractor.

One paragraph of the tender agreement with release contains the following provision: 2 CBCA 1185

[The VA] and [State Auto] acknowledge and agree that the Unpaid Contract Balance includes Retainage in the amount of $374,583.00 . . . . [The VA] and [State Auto] further acknowledge and agree the Retainage is subject to the claims by [the VA] for Incidental Expenses in the amount of $145,855.17, incurred by [the VA] as a result of the termination for default of [Edge]. If [State Auto] objects to all or part of the Incidental Expenses it will attempt to reach a resolution regarding its objection with the [VA]. If [State Auto] and the [VA] are unable to reach a resolution regarding [the VA’s -- sic] objection, [State Auto] and the [VA] will utilize . . . ADR [alternative dispute resolution] procedures . . . . If ADR is unsuccessful, [State Auto] will have the right to submit a claim in accordance with Clause 52.233-1 Disputes.

State Auto objected to the VA’s claims for incidental expenses. The parties engaged in an ADR session conducted by a judge of this Board as to this matter. As agreed in that session, State Auto then submitted to a VA contracting officer a claim for the amount of retained funds to which it believed it was entitled ($116,337.83), the contracting officer denied the claim, State Auto appealed his decision, and the parties filed a joint motion for a stipulated judgment on the appeal. In the motion, the parties “stipulate to an award in the amount of $70,400 and move the Board for entry of Judgment in favor of [State Auto] for $70,400 and containing or incorporating all terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.” This decision incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the agreement, one of which is that the sum of $70,400 is “full and complete compensation for all costs, direct and indirect, including but not limited to any attorney’s fees associated with any and all facts, issues, or matters underlying, associated with, or in any way related to CBCA No. 1185.” In the motion, the parties also state that they will not seek reconsideration of, or relief from, a Board decision which makes the stipulated award, and that they will not appeal such a decision.

The parties additionally request that the decision “state that the Board retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.” We deny this request. Whether the Board has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is a question of law, not a matter as to which parties or the Board may stipulate. The Board makes no determination as to whether its jurisdiction includes the resolution of disputes which may arise under the settlement agreement. GHR Fire Management Services v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 1078 (Apr. 29, 2008); Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 670, et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,691.

3 CBCA 1185

Decision

The appeal is GRANTED IN PART. The Department of Veterans Affairs shall pay to State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company the sum of $70,400. Rule 25(b). This payment shall be made from the permanent indefinite judgment fund. 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2000).

_________________________

STEPHEN M. DANIELS

Board Judge

We concur:

JERI KAYLENE SOMERS

Board Judge

H. CHUCK KULLBERG

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, CBCA 1185. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Topic

Same Year

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.