CBCA 456

Bird Construction (USA), Inc.

Jan 17, 2008Judge GilmoreGENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Not published in the listingGranted in part

Key Facts

Appellant
Bird Construction (USA), Inc.
Respondent agency
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Judge
Gilmore
Case number
CBCA 456
Decided
Jan 17, 2008The decision states Jan 17, 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
Lathrop & Gage L.C.
Outcome
Granted in part
GRANTED IN PART
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from that line, because the decision's text states no operative ruling we could isolate. 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
Michael D. Strong
Lathrop & Gage L.C.
Kansas City, MO
For the respondent
Robert M. Notigan
Office of General 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, 2,021 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Jan 17, 2008 on its own faceRespondent GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 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: January 17, 2008

CBCA 456

BIRD CONSTRUCTION (USA), INC.,

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.

Michael D. Strong of Lathrop & Gage L.C., Kansas City, MO, counsel for Appellant. Robert M. Notigan, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges PARKER, GILMORE, AND BORWICK.

GILMORE, Board Judge.

On or about May 31, 2002, Bird Construction (USA), Inc., (Bird) was awarded a contract by the General Services Administration (GSA) in the amount of $12,625,000 to provide general contracting services for the United States border station in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. During the course of the project, Bird submitted proposed change orders (PCOs) requesting compensation and time extensions because of various changes to the project’s design and scope. The PCOs included monetary claims in the amount of $864,927.75. On February 27, 2006, the contracting officer issued a final decision approving some of the PCOs and rejecting others. Bird then filed this appeal asserting that GSA owes it the entire amount claimed of $864,927.75.

____________________________

____________________________ ____________________________

2 CBCA 456

Bird and the GSA have now filed a joint motion for a stipulated judgment. The parties request that judgment in the amount of $525,000, inclusive of all interest and fees, be entered in favor of appellant, Bird. The parties further certify that they shall not seek review or reconsideration of the judgment. With respect to the decision, the parties waive their rights to reconsideration, to relief from judgment, and to appeal the decision. The appeal is GRANTED IN PART. The General Services Administration shall pay to Bird Construction (USA), Inc., the sum of $525,000. Rule 25(b). This sum shall be paid from the permanent indefinite judgment fund. 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2000).

BERYL S. GILMORE

Board Judge

We concur:

ROBERT W. PARKER

Board Judge

ANTHONY S. BORWICK

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Bird Construction (USA), Inc., CBCA 456. 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

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.