CBCA 670, 713

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.

Oct 4, 2007Judge GoodmanDEPARTMENT OF STATE
Not published in the listingGranted in partby agreement

Key Facts

Appellant
Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Judge
Goodman
Case number
CBCA 670, 713This cell names 2 dockets: 670, 713.
Decided
Oct 4, 2007The decision states Oct 4, 2007 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
Outcome
Granted in partEntered by agreement of the parties.
Accordingly, these appeals are 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

Jurisdiction and timelinessDelay, suspension and acceleration

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
Robert M. Fitzgerald and Louis B. Antonacci
Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald
McLean, VA
For the respondent
Dennis J. Gallagher and John C. Sawyer
Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisition, Department of State
Arlington, VA
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 decision3 pages, 4,342 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Oct 4, 2007 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF STATE Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

2 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

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 4, 2007

FLUOR INTERCONTINENTAL, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

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 M. Fitzgerald and Louis B. Antonacci of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P., McLean, VA, counsel for Appellant.

Dennis J. Gallagher and John C. Sawyer, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisition, Department of State, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges FENNESSY, HYATT, and GOODMAN.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. appealed two decisions of a contracting officer of the Department of State arising from its contract for design and construction work to convert the former 469th Contingency Hospital into a new United States Consulate for Frankfurt, Germany. The first appeal, docketed as CBCA 670, sought payment of $14,873,208 and entitlement to a time extension of 112 calendar days (referred to in the parties’ settlement agreement as the “Omnibus Claim”). The second appeal, docketed as CBCA 713, sought remission of the respondent’s assessment of liquidated damages. The appeals were consolidated by order of the Board.

2 CBCA 670, 713

On September 28, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for stipulated judgment with a settlement agreement that stated in part: The Government agrees to pay [appellant] the principal sum of FOUR MILLION, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,200,000.00), in full satisfaction of the Omnibus Claim, except as provided in paragraph 3.c of this Settlement Agreement, from the United States Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund (hereinafter the “Judgment Fund”). To effect this payment, [appellant] and the Department of State agree to move jointly to have the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals . . . enter Judgment in favor of [appellant] and against the Department of State in the amount of FOUR MILLION, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,200,000.00) and Order that payment is to be made from the Judgment Fund in full satisfaction of the Omnibus Claim filed before the CBCA, CBCA 670. Upon receipt of the Judgment and Order from the CBCA the Department of State Agrees to apply to Judgment Fund [sic] for payment of FOUR MILLION, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,200,000.00) in favor of [appellant]. If [appellant] does not receive from the Government such sum within ninety (90) days of the last date of signature on this agreement, in addition to the principal sum, the government shall pay to [appellant] Contract Disputes Act interest on st

such amount, accruing from the ninety-first (91 ) day after the last date of signature on this agreement.[1]

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the respondent also waived entitlement to liquidated damages which were the subject of CBCA 713.

In their joint motion for stipulated judgment, the parties agree that they will not seek reconsideration of or relief from this Board’s decision awarding judgment and that they will not appeal the Board’s decision.

1The parties’ joint motion for entry of judgment requests that the Board’s decision expressly incorporate all the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains provisions with regard to matters not included in these appeals, and payment of sums not included in the amount awarded by this decision. We do not incorporate those provisions into this decision. Additionally, paragraph 18 of the settlement agreement states in part: “Any controversies or legal problems arising out of this Agreement and any action involving the enforcement or interpretation of any rights hereunder shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of the CBCA.” The Board makes no determination as to whether its jurisdiction includes the resolution of disputes arising under the settlement agreement.

___________________________________

________________________________ ___________________________________

3 CBCA 670, 713

Decision

Accordingly, these appeals are GRANTED IN PART. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the Board awards the sum of $4,200,000 plus interest in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act, accruing as stated in the settlement agreement if payment is not made as specified in the settlement agreement, to be paid from the permanent indefinite judgment fund. 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2000).

ALLAN H. GOODMAN

Board Judge

We concur:

EILEEN P. FENNESSY

Board Judge

CATHERINE B. HYATT

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., CBCA 670, 713. 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.