CBCA 1326

P.J. Dick, Incorporated

Feb 2, 2009Judge GoodmanGENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Not published in the listingGranted in partby agreement

Key Facts

Appellant
P.J. Dick, Incorporated
Respondent agency
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Judge
Goodman
Case number
CBCA 1326
Decided
Feb 2, 2009The decision states Feb 2, 2009 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
Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P.
Outcome
Granted in partEntered by agreement of the parties.
Accordingly, 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

The topic rules ran over this decision's own words and none of them matched.

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
Robert K. Cox
Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P.
McLean, VA
For the respondent
Timothy C. Tozer
Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration
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 decision2 pages, 2,454 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Feb 2, 2009 on its own faceRespondent GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

3 authorities 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: February 2, 2009

CBCA 1326

P.J. DICK, INCORPORATED,

Appellant,

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

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.

Robert K. Cox of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P., McLean, VA, counsel for Appellant.

Timothy C. Tozer, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges SOMERS, BORWICK, and GOODMAN.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

Appellant, P.J. Dick, Incorporated, was awarded a firm, fixed price contract by the General Services Administration (GSA or respondent) to construct a facility for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Services in Suitland, Maryland. On June 10, 2008, appellant filed a claim alleging that it incurred additional costs in the amount of $149,570. Respondent’s contracting officer did not issue a decision with regard to the claim, and appellant filed an ___________________________________

_______________________________ _________________________________ 2 CBCA 1326

appeal of a portion of that claim in the amount of $69,000 as deemed denied on September 2, 2008.

On January 28, 2009, the parties filed a joint request for entry of judgment and dismissal of the appeal, which stated:

The parties jointly stipulate that Judgment should be entered in favor of Appellant . . . in the amount of $65,864.00, inclusive of interest allowable under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601, et seq.

Pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board’s . . . Rules of Procedure, the parties further certify that they shall not seek review or reconsideration of judgment so rendered. With respect to the decision of the Board issued pursuant to this stipulation, the parties waive their rights to reconsideration under Rule 26, rights to relief from judgment under Rule 27, and rights to appeal the decision.

Decision

Accordingly, the appeal is GRANTED IN PART. In accordance with the parties’ joint stipulation, the Board awards the sum of $65,864 inclusive of interest in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act, to be paid from the permanent indefinite judgment fund. 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2000).

ALLAN H. GOODMAN

Board Judge

We concur:

JERI K. SOMERS

Board Judge

ANTHONY S. BORWICK

Board Judge

Appellant stated in its notice of appeal that the remainder of the claim was submitted by appellant to respondent on behalf of a subcontractor and was the subject of another appeal docketed at this Board.

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in P.J. Dick, Incorporated, CBCA 1326. 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 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.