Grimberg v. United States: Buy American Act waiver denial dispute
This paper provides an outline of two cases involving government contract law, one regarding the Buy American Act, the second involving restitution for work on a contract where the work was not completed in a timely fashion.
✍️ How to write this paper — writing tools ▾
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.
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
The defendant, the United States of America, argued that as to three of the claims should be served with summary judgment because of their lack of validity under current law -- in other words; they were not valid grounds for a case under the rule of law. The court concurred with this assessment. The work was not completed in a timely fashion, bearing out the defendant's interpretation of the work, and it was invalid that the government provided restitution for the contracts Rhen might have obtained, had he received bonding -- but these damages were deemed too "remote, consequential and speculative" as a rule of law (576). No thinning was done on the roadways, and the roadways were already deleted from the project scope, based upon the evidence (575).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.