Maintenance Engineers v. U.S., 84-1247

Decision Date10 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-1247,84-1247
Citation749 F.2d 724
Parties32 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 73,104 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. Appeal
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Roger K. Stewart, Fresno, Cal., submitted for appellant.

Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Sandra P. Spooner, and Helene M. Goldberg, Washington, D.C., submitted for appellee.

Before BALDWIN, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and Jack R. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from that portion of the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("board"), Maintenance Engineers, ASBCA No. 25,464, 84-1 BCA p 17,100 (1983), denying appellant additional compensation (under its contract with the Department of the Navy for maintenance of family housing facilities at Naval installations in the San Diego, California, area) for an alleged breach by the Government in conducting a voluntary self-help program under which tenants residing in the facilities performed minor maintenance (e.g., painting) on their housing units. 1

The "BIDDING INFORMATION" issued with the Invitation For Bids states inter alia:

20. OPEN END CONTRACT. This is an "open end" contract with no fixed contract price. The actual amount of work to be performed and the time of such performance will be determined by the Officer in Charge or his properly authorized representative, who will issue written work orders to the Contractor. The only work authorized under this contract is that which is performed upon receipt of such a work order. The Government makes no representation as to the number of work orders or actual amount of services which will in fact be requested, nor is the Government obligated to accept any specified amount of service. However, during the term of this contract [12 months], a minimum of 40% of the dollar value [$471,000] of Bid Item No. 1 worth of services will be ordered. Amount of work to be ordered shall not exceed maximum of 100% over Bid Item 1. 2

The General Provisions of the contract include a standard clause 45, "REQUIREMENTS," which provides, inter alia:

(a) This is a requirements contract for the supplies or services specified in the Schedule ....

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this contract, the Government shall order from the Contractor all the supplies or services set forth in the Schedule which are required to be purchased by the Government activity identified in the "Orders" clause. [Emphasis added.]

The SPECIAL PARAGRAPHS portion of the contract provides:

12. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this solicitation, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) the Schedule ...; (b) Terms and Conditions of the solicitation, if any; (c) General Provisions; (d) other provisions of the contract, when attached ...; and (e) the Specifications and sketches.

....

26. WORK BY OTHERS: The Government reserves the right to accomplish work within the scope of this contract by Government forces or by another separate contract at the discretion of the Officer in Charge. This will apply on circumstances involving enormous magnitude of work that is beyond the capability of the Contractor to accomplish ... within the time frame favorable to the Government.

To the extent that there may be an inconsistency between the "WORK BY OTHERS" provision and the "OPEN END CONTRACT" provision, quoted earlier, the latter prevails under the contract's "ORDER OF PRECEDENCE" clause.

Notwithstanding clause 45 of the General Provisions, the Contracting Officer correctly determined that the contract is not a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hymas v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • January 14, 2016
    ...or a cooperative agreement is a question of law," which the court reviews de novo. Id. at 1385 (citing Maint. Eng'rs v. United States, 749 F.2d 724, 726 n. 3 (Fed.Cir.1984) ). As we explain below, the Service properly construed the instruments at issue as cooperative agreements. Various sta......
  • Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 26, 1997
    ... ... case is made considerably more problematic when, as in the case before us, the only information we have about the jury's views are contained in a ... ...
  • Certified Constr. Co. of Ky., LLC v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 31, 2016
    ...1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Medart, Inc. v. Austin, 967 F.2d 579, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); see also Maint. Eng'rs v. United States, 749 F.2d 724, 725-26 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, the touchstone right conferred on the contractor by a requirements contract is exclusivity. See Modern Sys.......
  • Associated Equipment Corp. v. Authorized Motor Parts Corp., s. 92-1184
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • April 6, 1993
    ... ... issue was raised in a timely manner and is therefore properly before us on appeal ...         Claim interpretation is a question of law, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT