The contractor invoiced the government for $5 million. The government said it only owed $400,000. COFC rejected the contractor’s claim. The contractor’s theory was premised on a non-existent right to unilaterally change contract terms.
Platinum Services, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 18-1539
- The Claim – To relocate service members, DoD collects offers, called tenders, from moving companies. DoD places orders against the tenders, which results in bills of lading. DoD issued bills of lading to the contractor. The contractor invoiced DoD for $5 million. DoD thought the contractors services were only worth $400,000. The contractor filed suit seeking the $4.6 million difference.
- Contractor Can’t Change Contract Terms – The bills of lading called for the contractor to use flatbed trucks. The contractor used closed trucks, which resulted in higher than anticipated costs. The contractor argued it had the right to use different trucks. The contractor argued the Military Freight Traffic Rules allowed it to use different trucks to ensure safe shipment. The court found these rules did not allow the contractor to change equipment and charge higher rates. If the contractor thought it needed different equipment, it should’ve sought DoD’s assent.
- Government Can’t Change Contract Terms – But the government had also changed the terms of the bills of lading. Instead of paying rates in the bills, DoD decided to simply use the lowest rates the contractor had on file in the tender system. The court found turnabout is not fair play. DoD can’t changes to terms of the contract either.
The contractor is represented by Anthony J. Marchese and Carol L. O’Riordan. The government is represented by Michael D. Snyder, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, and L. Misha Preheim of the Department of Justice as well as George Thomas, Jr. of the General Services Administration.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
