No. 07-738

White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States

Aug 3, 2015U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Contract disputeTerminations and damagesFor plaintiff

Key Facts

Plaintiff
White Buffalo Construction, Inc.
Case number
No. 07-738The court's own document address states this number. The hand-typed listing says 99-961, et al. instead, and both are shown rather than one being quietly corrected.
Decided
Aug 3, 2015
As the opinion prints it
Nos. 99-961C, 00-415C, and 07-738C

Official Record (govinfo)

Judge of record
Judge Thomas C. Wheeler
Nature of suit
Contract - Construction (CDA) (100)
Cause
civil

From U.S. court records published by the Government Publishing Office, matched to this decision only where the official record's issue date equals the decision date above. Open the official record.

Matter

Contract dispute

Matter is contract dispute, bid protest, or both. For a decision read from the curated listing it is the listing's own arrangement; for a decision read from the court's own feed it is the court's Nature of Suit where the official record holds one, and otherwise what the opinion's own opening states. Where the official record is available, the court's own Nature of Suit appears beside it.

Topics

Terminations and damages
  • Listed under: Default and Convenience Terminations; Lapsed Purchase Orders; Liquidated Damages; Agency Performance Evaluations

Topics are an editorial grouping of the decisions read from the curated listing, not a classification by the court. A decision listed under several topics carries all of them. Bid protests carry no topic at all, and neither does a decision read from the court's own feed: no grouping was published for them.

Appearances

For plaintiff
Richard E. Alexander
Stoel Rives, LLP
Portland, Oregon
For the United States
Heidi L. Osterhout
United States Department of Justice
Opinion PDF (uscourts.gov) U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe opinion document is hosted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims itself, so it is an official copy, and the court's own opinions page is the source of record. The outcome, topics and appearances above are derived deterministically from the court's record and the opinion's own text.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the COFC workspace: the Decision Brief workflow, the filtered browser and the outcome insights over the whole corpus.

COFC Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief drafted from this opinion's own text and the authorities it cites, with every citation traced back to the page it came from.

Browse and Insights

The court's opinions filtered by matter, topic, judge, outcome and year, with the outcome dashboard whose every rate divides by merits rulings.

Full Opinion

Full text of the opinion2 pages, 4,283 characters, read from the court's own documentFiled Aug 3, 2015 Decision documentOfficial source: U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe document states: Nos. 99-961C, 00-415C, and 07-738C

Authorities cited

1 authority read from this opinion's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Equal Access to Justice Act1

Read from the opinion'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 opinion cites.

Cases cited

1 case this opinion cites, in the order it first names it. 1 of them opens at a publisher.

Read from the opinion's own words with no model involved: the party names and the citation are as the opinion prints them. A case cited to a reporter is not held here, so where it opens was confirmed one citation at a time against an outside database and is labelled as leaving this app; a citation that database could not place, or matched to more than one case, is shown without a link rather than guessed at. A case named without a citation of any kind carries nothing to read, so it is left out rather than guessed at, and this is a floor on what the opinion cites.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

Nos. 99-961C, 00-415C, and 07-738C

(Consolidated)

(Filed: August 3, 2015)

Construction Contract for Road

Repairs in National Forest; Default

Termination Converted to Termination

for Convenience of the Government;

Correction of Damages Following

Remand.

WHITE BUFFALO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

The case caption as the opinion prints it. The box the court draws around it is a rule rather than text, so it is not repeated here; every word is.

For the plaintiff
Richard E. Alexander
Portland, Oregon
As the opinion writes it

Richard E. Alexander, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiff.

For the government
Heidi L. Osterhout
United States Department of Justice
As the opinion writes it

Heidi L. Osterhout, with whom were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.

Richard E. Alexander, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiff.

Heidi L. Osterhout, with whom were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.

Opinion and Order on Remand

WHEELER, Judge.

In the fall of 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) contracted with Plaintiff White Buffalo Construction, Inc. (“White Buffalo”) to repair damaged roads in the Siskiyou National Forest, located in southwestern Oregon. In December 1998, the FHA terminated the contract for default. White Buffalo filed suit in this Court on November 30, 1999, challenging the default termination, and seeking conversion to a termination for the convenience of the Government. White Buffalo filed a second suit on July 14, 2000 seeking the return of liquidated damages paid by White Buffalo’s surety. Prior to trial in these cases, the FHA, with authorization from the Department of Justice, converted White Buffalo’s termination for default into a termination for convenience based on evidence reviewed during trial preparation. White Buffalo maintained its 1999 and 2000 lawsuits, however, arguing that the conversion deprived it of relief under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S. § 2414, through which White Buffalo could have obtained attorneys’ fees. On October 22, 2007, White Buffalo filed a third lawsuit, to obtain lost profits on uncompleted work due to the FHA’s alleged bad faith conduct and to challenge the amount of the termination settlement with the FHA.

On June 5, 2015, Judge Wheeler received this case by transfer from Judge Lawrence J. Block.

This Court, with Senior Judge Loren A. Smith presiding, conducted a trial and issued a decision on September 22, 2011, finding that the 1999 and 2000 cases were moot due to the FHA’s conversion of the termination for default into a termination for convenience. The Court did not, however, dismiss those cases in its judgment. The Court also found that the FHA did not act in bad faith toward White Buffalo, and thus the Court awarded no lost profits for uncompleted work. The Court did award $353,237.36 plus interest to be paid on White Buffalo’s termination for convenience claim. However, the Court failed to include $29,528.00 in subcontractor damages in its final calculation due to a mathematical error. See White Buffalo Constr., Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 1 (2011).

White Buffalo filed a notice of appeal of these consolidated cases on January 6, 2012. On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case to this Court with directions. White Buffalo Constr., Inc. v. United States, 546 Fed. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013). On December 23, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate to this Court, with instructions to dismiss the 1999 and 2000 cases as moot, and to determine whether to award the missing $29,528.00 in damages.

The parties have agreed in a July 24, 2015 joint status report that the $29,528.00 in subcontractor damages were actually awarded by this Court but were not added to the original judgment. The Court therefore awards the missing $29,528.00 in damages in case number 07-738C, and dismisses the cases docketed as 99-961C and 00-415C as moot. The $29,528.00 in subcontractor damages should be added to the $352,237.36 previously awarded for a corrected total of $381,765.36, with interest to be recalculated by the parties in accordance with applicable law. The Clerk is directed to issue an amended judgment reflecting this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas C. Wheeler

THOMAS C. WHEELER

Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the court's own document in White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the court wrote them. Two things the page shows are not repeated in the text: the rule the court draws around its caption, and the pagination furniture (the page numbers and the electronic filing stamp printed across the top of each page).

Related Decisions

Same Topic: Terminations and damages

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.