United Partition Systems, Inc. v. U.S.

5 Citing cases

  1. Allen Eng'g Contractor Inc. v. United States

    611 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the Navy did not cause this default. The Navy might have caused the default if it breached its agreement with AECI, see Airport Indus. Park, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 332, 338 (2004), if it failed to communicate obligations to AECI, or if it otherwise failed to satisfy terms of its agreement with AECI, e.g., United Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 74 (2009); Abcon Assoc., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 678 (2001). But in the present case, AECI caused this default.

  2. AEY, Inc. v. United States

    No. 09-330C (Fed. Cl. May. 24, 2011)

    For cases in which a plaintiff contests the validity of a termination for default, "[t]he government bears the burden of proof in establishing the validity of [such] termination." Johnson Mgmt. Grp., CFC, Inc. v. Martinez, 308 F.3d 1245, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009); United Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 74, 88 (2009). B. Collateral Estoppel

  3. United Partition Systems, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 03-1242C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 12, 2010)   Cited 4 times
    In United Partition, the Court's review of Federal Circuit precedent led it to conclude that expenses that are also taxable costs may be awarded either pursuant to EAJA or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 "so long as there is statutory authorization for costs or expenses."

    In this contract case, a post-trial judgment was issued in favor of plaintiff, United Partition Systems, Inc. ("United Partition"). See United Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 74 (2009) (" United Partition II"). That judgment became final when the government dismissed an appeal it had taken from the judgment.

  4. Old Colony Constr., LLC v. Town of Southington

    316 Conn. 202 (Conn. 2015)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    See TRG Construction, Inc. v. Water & Sewer Authority, 70 A.3d 1164, 1168 (D.C.2013) (“[w]e recognize that the Federal Circuit, in [ Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 769 (Fed.Cir.1987) ], specifically refused to rule on the question of whether the government may deduct the cost of replacing defective work from a termination for convenience recovery”). See United Partition Systems, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 74, 95 (2009) (after terminating contract for convenience, “the government may not obtain reprocurement costs for work that it prevented [the contractor] from performing”); TRG Construction, Inc. v. Water & Sewer Authority, 70 A.3d 1164, 1167–68 (D.C.2013) (“[u]pon terminating a contract for convenience, the government loses whatever right it has to hold the contractor responsible for correcting deficiencies in the work included in the terminated portion of the contract” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Paragon Restoration Group, Inc. v. Cambridge Square Condominiums, 42 App.Div.3d 905, 906, 839 N.Y.S.2d 658 (2007) (“[w]e conclude that the first counterclaim should have been dismissed against [the] plaintiff to the extent that it sought an offset for the costs of completing the project because, [w]here [the defendant] elects to terminate for convenience ... whether with or without cause, it cannot counterclaim for the cost of curing any alleged default” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Ti

  5. TRG Construction Inc. v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

    70 A.3d 1164 (D.C. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Further, after a termination for convenience, “the government may not obtain reprocurement costs for work that it prevented [the contractor] from performing.” United Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 74, 95 (2009). Finally, the government must prove the amount of its claims.