Halifax Engineering, Inc. v. U.S.
| Citation | 915 F.2d 689 |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1723,89-1723 |
| Parties | 36 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 75,948 HALIFAX ENGINEERING, INC., Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Durrette, Irvin & Lemons, P.C., Richmond, Va., argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was Bradley B. Cavedo.
Lois P. Murphy, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Helene M. Goldberg, Asst. Director. Also on the brief was Jerome M. Drummond, Office of Gen. Counsel, Gen. Services Admin., Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Before ARCHER and MAYER, Circuit Judges, and WEIGEL, District Judge. *
Halifax Engineering, Inc. (Halifax) appeals a decision of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (board), GSBCA No. 8173 (May 22, 1989). The board upheld a contracting officer's decision to terminate for default Halifax's contract to provide security guard services at the United States Department of State. We affirm.
On January 22, 1985, Halifax was awarded contract number GS-11-C-40212 to provide security guard services at the main Department of State building and six annexes. Halifax was required to begin performance on June 1, 1985. Under the terms of the contract's default provision, the government could terminate for default prior to the contract start date if it provided Halifax with a cure notice identifying the deficiencies it believed endangered Halifax's ability to begin performance and allowed Halifax a minimum of ten days in which to cure those deficiencies. 1
Halifax experienced difficulty in establishing an adequate radio network and in qualifying a sufficient number of personnel to staff the guard-posts at the State Department. 2 By telegram dated May 31, 1985, the government notified Halifax that it considered Halifax unable to meet the contract requirements and thus to be in default. The government requested that Halifax "show just cause as to why your contract should not be terminated and show that you can start service in ten days."
In response to proposals by Halifax, by letter dated June 6, 1985, the government informed Halifax that it had decided not to terminate the contract for default. The government set a new contract start date of July 1, 1985, and stated:
You are hereby notified that failure to start performance or be adequately prepared to start performance on July 1, 1985, will be grounds for immediate termination for default. No further cure notices or show cause notices will be issued.
On June 21, 1985, Halifax's radio network was tested and proved inadequate. During subsequent tests on June 24 and June 26, 1985, the radio network still failed to function properly. On June 26, 1985, the government terminated the contract based on Halifax's failure to make progress and inability to be prepared to commence performance on the new contract start date.
On appeal, the Board of Contract Appeals determined that the June 6, 1985, letter constituted a cure notice. The board further found that, as of June 26, 1985, Halifax was inadequately prepared to begin performance on July 1, 1985. Therefore, the board upheld the termination for default.
Halifax argues that the June 6, 1985 letter was not a proper cure notice and, therefore, that it was not properly terminated for default prior to the new contract start date. As quoted above, the letter provided:
You are hereby notified that failure to start performance or be adequately prepared to start performance on July 1, 1985, will be grounds for immediate termination for default. No further cure notices or show cause notices will be issued.
The board interpreted this language to mean that failure to start performance on July 1, 1985, or failure to be adequately prepared prior to July 1, 1985 to start performance on July 1, 1985, would be grounds for termination for default.
"Contract interpretation is a question of law, and thus the Board's interpretation is not final, although it is afforded careful consideration and great respect." Alvin, Ltd. v. United States Postal Serv., 816 F.2d 1562, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1987). Here, the board's interpretation of the letter as a cure notice makes sense. As the board observed, the letter "was obviously intended to be a cure notice, else why the statement, 'No further cure notices ... will be sent.' " GSBCA No. 8173 at 8. Further, the phrase "or be adequately prepared to start performance on July 1, 1985" must refer to a point in time prior to July 1 since Halifax was already contractually required actually to start performance on July 1. In contrast, Halifax's proposed interpretation of the letter--that failure to start performance on July 1,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Energy Management Systems, Inc. v. Roche
...identified was the failure to resume construction, and a new notice was required. That is not correct.14 In Halifax Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 915 F.2d 689 (Fed.Cir.1990), we addressed and rejected a similar argument. In Halifax, the contractor received a cure notice providing that......
-
Meadow Green-Wildcat Corp. v. Hathaway, GREEN-WILDCAT
...interpretation of the document's language, the meaning of which raises a "question of law?" See, e.g., Halifax Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 915 F.2d 689, 690 (Fed.Cir.1990); Shea and Schaengold, A Guide to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Briefing Papers (December 1990) ......
-
Cooper/Ports Am., LLC v. Sec'y of Def.
...Inc. v. Roche , 362 F.3d 1343, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (considering circumstances outside the notice); Halifax Engineering, Inc. v. United States , 915 F.2d 689, 691 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (same); Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (explaining that due notice is "notice that is legally adequate......
-
Schneider Elec. Buildings Am's. v. United States
...to gather whether it was apparent from the circumstances that the contractor "had sufficient notice of the asserted defects." Halifax Eng'g, Inc., 915 F.2d at 689. record indicates that Schneider had actual notice of the asserted defects. The Cure Notice referenced Schneider's "inability to......