Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman
| Decision Date | 08 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1314,94-1314 |
| Citation | 55 F.3d 1578 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
| Parties | 40 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,789 CALDWELL & SANTMYER, INC., Appellant, v. Dan GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Appellee. |
Linda M. Schuett, Blum, Yumkas, Mailman, Gutman & Denick, P.A., Baltimore, MD, argued, for appellant. With her on the brief was Joseph C. Kovars.
Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Atty., Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director.
Before RICH, NIES, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
This is a Contract Disputes Act 1 case. Appellant, Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. ("Caldwell"), appeals from the decision of the United States Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals ("Board") in Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc., AGBCA No. 93-191-1, 94-2 BCA (CCH) p 26,854, 1994 WL 125892 (April 13, 1994). In its decision, the Board granted the Department of Agriculture's ("Agriculture's") motion for summary judgment, denied Caldwell's similar motion, and dismissed Caldwell's appeal. Caldwell had appealed to the Board from a contracting officer's final decision denying its claim for alleged wrongful termination of a construction contract between Caldwell and Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS"). APHIS terminated the contract for the convenience of the government after award but before construction had started or a notice to proceed had been issued. Because the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence and is not tainted by legal error, we affirm.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. 2 On April 27, 1992, APHIS solicited bids for the construction of its Plant Germplasm Quarantine Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. Caldwell was one of the bidders. Both the specifications and an equipment schedule in the contract listed two categories of equipment as "vendor furnished/vendor installed." APHIS received no questions from prospective bidders concerning the term "vendor furnished/vendor installed."
R.J. Crowley, Inc. ("Crowley") submitted the lowest bid, which was 41 percent lower than the APHIS estimate. After APHIS asked Crowley to submit the cost summary sheets it had used in preparing its bid, Crowley informed APHIS of two mathematical errors in the bid. APHIS also discovered that Crowley had omitted the costs for "vendor furnished/vendor installed" equipment. Crowley was permitted to withdraw its bid on August 8, 1992, making Caldwell the lowest bidder.
Because of the problems APHIS had experienced with Crowley's bid, the contact person at APHIS for the contract asked Caldwell to submit the cost summary sheets it had used in determining its bid price. Caldwell complied with the request on August 11, 1992. The cost summary sheets showed that Caldwell had not included any costs for the "vendor furnished/vendor installed" equipment. When the contracting officer returned from vacation and was told by his contact person that Caldwell's bid did not include any costs for the "vendor furnished/vendor installed" items, he was angry that Caldwell had been asked for its cost summary sheets. In his opinion, APHIS had no reason to believe that Caldwell's bid contained an error that would require bid verification. His opinion was based on the analysis of the architectural/engineering firm that had prepared the specifications for the project and on the amounts of the next three lowest bids. Accordingly, he instructed that Caldwell be sent the routine preaward letter. The letter was sent on August 17. On September 7, APHIS awarded Caldwell the contract.
Caldwell interpreted the specification's "vendor furnished/vendor installed" language to mean government furnished, as opposed to contractor furnished, whereas APHIS wanted the "vendor furnished/vendor installed" equipment to be contractor furnished with a vendor representative present and involved in the installation.
On October 5, 1992, after reviewing the bid proposal for the first time, the contracting officer personally concluded that Caldwell had not included in its bid any costs for "vendor furnished/vendor installed" equipment. The next day, he wrote Caldwell a letter in which he stated that, as the general contractor, it was responsible for supplying equipment designated "vendor furnished/vendor installed." He asked Caldwell to submit a corrected bid in accordance with mistake after award procedures, and directed that no work proceed under the contract. Caldwell responded that it had not erred in its bid submission. As noted above, Caldwell interpreted the "vendor furnished/vendor installed" language as requiring that APHIS furnish the equipment involved. After reviewing the specifications and drawings, the contracting officer concluded that the term "vendor furnished/vendor installed" was not precisely defined and that Caldwell had not made an error in its bid.
APHIS estimated the cost of supplying and installing the omitted equipment to be between $200,000 and $300,000, and decided not to proceed under a contract that would require such a material alteration. As a result, on November 23, 1992, it terminated Caldwell's contract for convenience. The termination letter stated that the contract had been erroneously awarded, that the solicitation contained defective specifications susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, that other bidders on the project also may have omitted the costs of "vendor furnished/vendor installed" equipment, that the ambiguity of the specifications impeded full and open competition, and that corrective action would prejudice the other bidders.
On January 5, 1993, Caldwell submitted two settlement proposals to the contracting officer. The first was a termination for convenience settlement proposal in the amount of $24,669.13. Caldwell wrote that the proposal was comprised of overhead costs "plus standard markups and settlement expenses." APHIS accepted this proposal and paid Caldwell pursuant to it.
Caldwell's second settlement proposal was for breach of contract, based upon alleged wrongful termination of the contract; it was in the amount of $148,132.66. Caldwell explained that it was seeking to recover lost profits and overhead of $146,666 and a bonding premium of $1,466.66. 3 Citing Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756, 231 Ct.Cl. 20 (1982), Caldwell asserted that APHIS could not use the termination for convenience clause "to terminate a contract where the circumstances of the bargain or the expectations of the parties have not changed." According to Caldwell, APHIS could not use the termination for convenience clause "simply to get out of a bad deal that it was aware of, or should have been aware of, at the time of the contract award." After the contracting officer denied its proposal, Caldwell appealed to the Board.
In granting Agriculture's motion for summary judgment, the Board noted that, under the termination for convenience clause, a contracting officer has "broad discretion." Caldwell, 94-2 BCA (CCH) at 133,625. The Board observed that, in Caldwell's case, the clause appeared to have been used "for its intended purpose of ending an improvident procurement." Id. Accordingly, the Board concluded, the contracting officer had not abused his discretion in terminating the contract. Id. The Board rejected Caldwell's Torncello argument. It found "no evidence the Government intended before award to terminate the contract for any reason." Id.
We treat the decision of an agency board on any question of fact as final and conclusive unless the decision is "fraudulent, or arbitrary, or capricious, or so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith, or if such decision is not supported by substantial evidence." 41 U.S.C. Sec. 609(b) (1988). In reviewing the decision of an agency board on any question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caddell Constr. Co. v. United States
...Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 43 n.9; United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)); see also Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("We assume the government acts in good faith when contracting." (citing Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756......
-
Gulf Grp. Gen. Enters. Co. v. United States
...officer, plaintiff has a high burden of proof to show that a determination was an abuse of discretion. See Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Salsbury Indus. v. United States, 905 F.2d 1518, 1521 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g denied (Fed. Cir.), and suggestion ......
-
One Largo Metro, LLC v. United States
...Id. (quoting Knotts v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 489, 492, 121 F. Supp. 630, 631 (1954)); see also Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("We assume the government acts in good faith when contracting. Torncello [v. United States], 681 F.2d [756,] 770 [(......
-
Securiforce Int'l Am., LLC v. United States
...officer, plaintiff has a high burden of proof to show that a determination was an abuse of discretion. See Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Salsbury Indus. v. United States, 905 F.2d 1518, 1521 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g denied (Fed. Cir.), and suggestion ......
-
Table of Cases
...Jackson, 430 F.3d 584 (2d Cir. 2005): 13.2(2) Cady v. Morton, 527 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1975): 13.2(1) Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995): 20.3(2) Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2007): 25.4(5)(b) Capital Elec. Co. v. United State......
-
§20.3 Termination for Convenience
...a termination-for-convenience clause, it is in breach of contract due to the improper termination. Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Torncello, 231 Ct. Cl. 20). This rule is so well entrenched that the court has described it as "unremarkable.......