ยง

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

886 F.2d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
Hensel Phelps Const. Co. v. U.S.

3 Citing cases

  1. Abraham v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.

    326 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming an award to Rockwell by the Department of Energy Board of Contract Appeals of costs incurred by Rockwell in defending itself successfully against possible criminal environmental charges

    Such clauses have been cited by this court to resolve conflicts between contract specifications and drawings, such that if "the contract contains an order of precedence clause, the specifications shall control [over the drawings]." Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also Government Contracts: Cycolopedic Guide to Law, Administration, Procedure ยง 2.180 (2000).

  2. General Engineering Mach. Works v. O'Keefe

    991 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Navy was entitled to reimbursement based on contractor's failure to maintain material-handling charges in separate cost pool as required by regulatory payments clause incorporated into contract by operation of law

    Appellant maintains that the language providing for a 15% material handling charge takes precedence over the general provision, the 7.901.6 clause. An "Order of Precedence" clause may be consulted when an inconsistency arises in a contract. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Sperry Corp. v. United States, 845 F.2d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, the 7-901.6 clause merely adds further restrictions to those of the 7-103.

  3. West Bay Builders, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 04-1140 C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 26, 2008)

    An order of precedence clause applies in order "to resolve conflicts between contract specifications and drawings, such that if `the contract contains an order of precedence clause, the specifications shall control [over the drawings].'" Abraham v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 326 F.3d 1242, 1253 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (alteration in original)). This court noted in Apollo Sheet Metal, Inc. v. United States that "such conflicts regard precise, and directly competing, contract provisions," such as "inconsistencies . . . where two provisions conflict regarding the length, width, height, placement, time, duration, or other such particularized specifications.