John C. Grimberg Company Incorporated,

John C. Grimberg Company Incorporated, Appellant, v. The United States, Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 15, 1989.

869 F.2d 1475. 11 ITRD 1196, 57 USLW 2580, 35. Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 75,634

Key Facts

The United States Navy awarded Grimberg a contract for construction work at the Bethesda, Maryland Naval Center. Grimberg had subcontracted some of the work to a domestic company. After being awarded the contract, the domestic subcontractor refused to honor the contract, so Grimberg, unable to find an equally inexpensive domestic vendor for the entire contract, selected a Canadian firm to perform the necessary work. The Navy rejected this as a violation of the Buy American Act (BAA) and refused to give Grimberg a waiver. "Faced with construction deadlines, Grimberg chose to obtain the precast panels from a domestic subcontractor and incurred costs of $200,000 for fabrication, $59,000 for erection, and approximately $23,000 for miscellaneous work" (492).Grimberg submitted an equitable adjustment claim for $53,847 to reflect the increased cost from using a domestic subcontractor, which the Navy denied.

Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court

BAA "requires that only domestic materials be used for public works contracts unless the head of an agency determines that such use is inconsistent with the public interest or the cost is unreasonable" (492). Grimberg demanded restitution because it made a good faith effort to find a cheaper domestic contractor, and the Navy failed to wave the BAA, which would have permitted Grimberg to use the cheaper Canadian contractor.

Holding of the Court

The decision of the ASBCA (Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals) was reversed.

Court's Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision

The ASBCA's failure to grant the requested waiver was deemed to be an abuse of discretion, and it was found that Grimberg was entitled to its desired adjustment as prescribed by the contract. The Navy had flexibility to grant the original wavier to the BAA and denied Grimberg's appeal to use a Canadian firm. "Had the Navy granted the waiver, no increase in cost would have been incurred and the government may have been entitled to a credit. Instead, Grimberg was saddled with an additional fabrication cost of $34,500 beyond that which it had originally quoted" (494).

Case name and citation

Ronald R. J Rhen, plaintiff v. The United States, defendant. No. 308-88C. United States Claims Court, 17 Cl. Ct. 140. June 2, 1989.

Key Facts

The plaintiff Rhen had been contracted to clear surplus trees and bushes by the Oregon government within a specified time frame of 6 months. Progress was slow and the plaintiff was asked to submit a revised work schedule. The time frame of the contract concluded and the work was not yet completed. The contracting officer found that the plaintiff had not met the required deadline and that the plaintiff's excuses were not acceptable grounds for extensions. Plaintiff Rhen filed suit for wrongful termination.

Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court

The plaintiff asks for the fee he or she was to be paid for the work, reimbursement the income he lost because of his inability to obtain 'bonding,' and the costs of the value of road acreage deleted from the contract.

Holding of the Court

Defendant's partial motion for summary judgment was granted

Court's Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision