Franchi Const. Co., Inc. v. United States

3 Citing cases

  1. Hensel Phelps Const. Co. v. U.S.

    886 F.2d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    Hensel Phelps apparently learned of the discrepancy when Watts was advised by a government inspector during construction that 36 inches of fill would be required. The Board concluded, however, that the decision of the United States Court of Claims in Franchi Constr. Co. v. United States, 609 F.2d 984 (Ct.Cl. 1979), and the decision in Shirley Contracting Corp., ASBCA No. 29028, 87-1 BCA (CCH) ¶ 19,389, applying the Franchi case, were controlling and precluded recovery by Hensel Phelps. OPINION

  2. Medlin Const. Group, Ltd. v. Harvey

    449 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that a government contract must be interpreted in a manner that “assure that no contract provision is made inconsistent, superfluous, or redundant”

    Such interpretation is in conflict because the specifications provide two acceptable methods of performance (i.e., polystyrene or concrete retainers), yet the drawings provide only one (i.e., concrete retainers). In Franchi Construction Co. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 796, 609 F.2d 984 (1979), the Court of Claims found that the details of a provision of the specifications conflicted with the details of the drawings and relied on the order of precedence clause to conclude that the specifications govern. Medlin's Contract similarly has an order of precedence clause, FAR 52.236-21(a), which provides that "[i]n [the] case of [a] difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern."

  3. Edward R. Marden Corp. v. United States

    803 F.2d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that an order-of-precedence clause did not resolve an ambiguity where there was "substantial doubt as to which of the inconsistent directions of the specifications should govern"

    On the remainder of the contractor's claim, the Board concluded that the contractor should have known that a serious conflict existed between the specifications and drawings. Relying on the dicta in Franchi Constr. Co. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 796, 609 F.2d 984 (1979), the Board then held that the allowance of the contractor's claim under the order of precedence clause for costs which the contractor had already included in his bid would amount to "overreaching." Discussion I.