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

1 Citing case

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

    449 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 16 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."