CBCA 5270

C. Overaa & Co.

Jan 25, 2018Judge KullbergDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DecisionGranted in partby agreement

Key Facts

Appellant
C. Overaa & Co.
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Judge
Kullberg
Case number
CBCA 5270
Decided
Jan 25, 2018The decision states Jan 25, 2018 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Decision
Law firm for the appellant
The decision's own appearances block names no outside firm, which happens when the appellant appeared pro se, through one of its own officers, or through its in-house counsel.
Outcome
Granted in partEntered by agreement of the parties.
The Board GRANTS IN PART the appeal.
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
Joshua Genser
C. Overaa & Co.
Richmond, CA
For the respondent
David G. Fagan
Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs
Portland, OR
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, 1,645 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Jan 25, 2018 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: January 25, 2018

CBCA 5270

C. OVERAA & CO.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

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.

Joshua Genser, General Counsel of C. Overaa & Co., Richmond, CA, counsel for Appellant.

David G. Fagan, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges VERGILIO, KULLBERG, and LESTER.

KULLBERG, Board Judge.

On January 16, 2018, the parties submitted to the Board a joint motion for judgment on a stipulated settlement. The parties requested that the Board enter judgment in the amount of $100,000, with payment to be made through the judgment fund in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2012) and 41 U.S.C. § 7108. Rule 25(b) (48 CFR 6101.25(b) (2015)). The parties have agreed that they will not seek appeal of, reconsideration of, or relief from, the Board’s decision, and that each party will be responsible for its costs, attorney fees, and expenses incurred in the litigation of this appeal.

The parties’ settlement agreement also stipulated that the $100,000 judgment does not include the following two undisputed amounts: added cut detector and heat detector, $6398.27; and telephone lines for elevator controllers, $3835.27. Those amounts will be paid separately according to the parties’ settlement agreement.

Decision

The Board GRANTS IN PART the appeal. In accordance with the parties’ joint motion, the Board awards appellant the stipulated settlement amount of $100,000. Rule 25(b).

______________________

H. CHUCK KULLBERG

Board Judge

We concur:

JOSEPH A. VERGILIO

Board Judge

HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in C. Overaa & Co., CBCA 5270. 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.