CBCA 2263, 2387, 2428, 2507

Gemstone Properties, Lp

Oct 23, 2012Judge SternDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Not published in the listingGranted in part

Key Facts

Appellant
Gemstone Properties, Lp
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Judge
Stern
Case number
CBCA 2263, 2387, 2428, 2507This cell names 4 dockets: 2263, 2387, 2428, 2507.
Decided
Oct 23, 2012The decision states Oct 23, 2012 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
Durazzo & Eckel, P.C.
Outcome
Granted in part
These appeals are GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $190,000.
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

Payment and interest

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
Patric E. Durazzo
Durazzo & Eckel, P.C.
Tucson, AZ
For the respondent
Thomas J. Mitchell
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 decision2 pages, 2,059 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Oct 23, 2012 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

4 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
Agency FAR supplements1

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: October 23, 2012

CBCA 2263, 2387, 2428, 2507

GEMSTONE PROPERTIES, LP,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

Patric E. Durazzo of Durazzo & Eckel, P.C., Tucson, AZ, 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.

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

Before Board Judges STERN, BORWICK, and POLLACK.

STERN, Board Judge.

These appeals involved claims arising out of a contract for the construction and long-term lease of a facility in Tucson, Arizona, for use by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a consolidated mail outpatient pharmacy.

Pursuant to Board Rule 25(b) (48 CFR 6101.25(b) (2011)), the parties have submitted a joint settlement stipulation, stipulating to the award of $190,000 to Gemstone Properties, LP (Gemstone). In addition, the parties stipulate that in the event that payment is not made by November 6, 2012, additional interest in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7109 (Supp. IV 2011), will begin to accrue on that date and will continue to accrue until payment is made to Gemstone. In accordance with Board Rule 31, the parties state that they will not seek reconsideration of, or relief from the Board’s decision, and they will not appeal the decision.

The Board adopts the parties’ stipulation by decision. Pursuant to Board Rule 25(b), the Board’s decision is an adjudication on the merits.

Decision

These appeals are GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $190,000. Payment is to be made from the permanent indefinite judgment fund in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2006). In the event that payment is not made by November 6, 2012, additional interest in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7109 (Supp. IV 2011), will begin to accrue on that date and will continue to accrue until payment is made to Gemstone. _________________________________

JAMES L. STERN

Board Judge

We concur:

HOWARD A. POLLACK

Board Judge

ANTHONY S. BORWICK

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Gemstone Properties, Lp, CBCA 2263, 2387, 2428, 2507. 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

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.