CBCA 3927, 4099

P.J. Dick Incorporated

Jul 20, 2016Judge GoodmanDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DecisionGranted in partby agreement

Key Facts

Appellant
P.J. Dick Incorporated
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Judge
Goodman
Case number
CBCA 3927, 4099This cell names 2 dockets: 3927, 4099.
Decided
Jul 20, 2016The decision states Jul 20, 2016 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Decision
Law firm for the appellant
Blumling & Gusky, LLP, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Outcome
Granted in partEntered by agreement of the parties.
Pursuant to the parties' motion for stipulated award, the Board GRANTS the appeal 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

Jurisdiction and timelinessPayment 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. They are ordered strongest first.

Appearances

For the appellant
K. Bradley Mellor and Ross A. Giorgianni
Blumling & Gusky, LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
For the appellant
William E. Dorris
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Atlanta, GA
For the respondent
Benjamin M. Diliberto
Office of 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, 2,542 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Jul 20, 2016 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 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.

Contract Disputes Act1
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: July 20, 2016

CBCA 3927, 4099

P.J. DICK INCORPORATED,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

K. Bradley Mellor and Ross A. Giorgianni of Blumling & Gusky, LLP, Pittsburgh,

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.

PA; and William E. Dorris of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Appellant. Benjamin M. Diliberto, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges VERGILIO, GOODMAN, and ZISCHKAU.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

On June 24 and September 13, 2014, appellant filed these subsequently consolidated appeals arising from the deemed denial and denial by respondent’s contracting officer of appellant’s certified claim in the amount of $673,612. On February 8, 2016, the Board issued a decision denying respondent’s motion for partial summary relief, P.J. Dick, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 3927, et al., 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,239.

On July 18, 2016, pursuant to Board Rule 25(b) (48 CFR 6101.25(b) (2015)), the parties submitted a joint motion for judgment on stipulation of settlement for judgment in the amount of two hundred five thousand dollars ($205,000), with a settlement agreement attached. Their motion states in relevant part: [I]n accordance with the terms of the attached Settlement Agreement and Stipulation, the parties jointly move the Board for judgement in favor of the Appellant in the total amount of $205,000.00, inclusive of all interest.

Each party shall be responsible for [its] own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in this litigation. Respondent will not be liable for interest under the Contract Disputes Act on the agreed-upon settlement amount.

The Settlement Agreement states in relevant part: Upon receiving a judgement from the CBCA . . . the [respondent] shall promptly submit all necessary documents to the Department of the Treasury for processing payment under the Judgment Fund.

Pursuant to Rule 25(b) and 27 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, appellant and respondent state in their motion that they will not seek review or reconsideration of this judgment, or relief from the judgement.

Decision

Pursuant to the parties’ motion for stipulated award, the Board GRANTS the appeal IN PART. Appellant is awarded a total of $205,000. Payment may be made from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2012).

__________________________________

ALLAN H. GOODMAN

Board Judge

We concur:

JOSEPH A. VERGILIO

Board Judge

JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in P.J. Dick Incorporated, CBCA 3927, 4099. 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.