Expressway Const. v. WASH. METRO. A. TRANSIT AUTH., Civ. A. No. 87-2388.

• Court: United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS F. HOGAN
• Citation: 676 F. Supp. 16
• Parties: EXPRESSWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 23 December 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 87-2388.

676 F. Supp. 16

EXPRESSWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 87-2388.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

December 23, 1987.

676 F. Supp. 17

Leonard A. White, Bethesda, Md., and John P. Calvert, Chevy Chase, Md., for plaintiff.

Sara E. Lister, Gen. Counsel, Robert L. Polk, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Thomas B. Dorrier, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Frank R. Filiatreau, Jr., Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is the issue of the scope of review which governs the Court in considering this contract dispute. Plaintiff claims that this Court should hear this case on de novo review. Defendant counters that the Court's scope of review is limited to the administrative record. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs on the issue of the scope of review. In consideration of the briefs, oral argument of counsel at the hearing held on the matter, and the entire record of the case, and in accordance with the bench opinion rendered by the Court, the Court determines that the scope of review is limited to the administrative record.

DISCUSSION

This case involves a dispute over a contract into which the parties entered whereby plaintiff, the contractor, as part of its services was to excavate earth in connection with the construction of the Grosvenor station portion of defendant's rapid rail transit system. The dispute concerns the appropriate calculation of reimbursement for the excavation work. Plaintiff pursued its administrative remedies pursuant to the disputes clause of the contract.¹ Specifically, after the contracting officer denied plaintiff's claims for payment in July, 1979, plaintiff appealed the decision to the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeal ("Eng. BCA"). The Eng. BCA conducted a de novo adversary hearing on November 21-22, 1983. The Eng. BCA rendered an advisory opinion on July 14, 1986, finding in favor of defendant. The defendant's general manager adopted the advisory opinion of the Eng. BCA and issued a final decision denying the appeals. Plaintiff then filed suit on August 28, 1987.

The Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. § 321, provides that any administrative "decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to...