Government’s motion for partial dismissal of litigation seeking additional compensation under a construction contract with the Navy is denied, where the parties cited to separate sections of the contract to support their contentions, but neither provided the court with a complete copy of the agreement. The court declined to consider the agreement in piecemeal fashion, explaining that the various provisions must be considered in context of the whole contract.
The government moved for a partial dismissal of Coffman Specialties Inc.’s claims under its contract with the Navy for construction services related to the repair of an aircraft runway. In its complaint, Coffman asserted two causes of action, the first of which the government attempted to have dismissed.
Coffman argued it was entitled to recover costs associated with the disposal of excess soil. According to Coffman, the agency improperly imposed expensive restrictions on the manner of the disposal, contrary to the terms of the contract. Coffman asserted that it relied on those terms when it arranged to haul excess soil generated on the project to a nearby commercial farm. The agency objected to this plan because the farm was not licensed for this purpose, and required Coffman to haul the soil to a licensed landfill facility or a commercial recycling facility. Coffman complied but argued the agency’s requirements for the disposal of excess soil resulted in a constructive change to the contract. In essence, Coffman argued the government improperly imposed commercial landfill licensing and permitting requirements on a commercial farm, where they do not apply.
Testing at a commercial landfill confirmed the soil was contaminated, but Coffman argued that the site’s testing standards were more stringent than required by state or federal regulations. The contamination increased the cost per ton for the soil disposal, and Coffman estimated that the prohibition on using a local dump site increased its costs by $1,415,800. The contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment, which was denied. Coffman submitted a certified claim, which also was denied, and this complaint followed.
The government moved to dismiss Coffman’s first cause of action, citing various contract provisions. In response, Coffman cited to different sections. However, neither party provided the court with a complete copy of the contract. The government argued the full text of the contract was not required for the court’s review, but the court disagreed, explaining that the contract must be read and understood as a whole. This precept was particularly important in this case, where the parties cited to separate sections of the agreement to support their case and did not agree on the legal import of those provisions. The court declined to consider the contract in piecemeal fashion and denied the government’s motion to dismiss.
Coffman Specialties Inc. is represented by William J. Braun. The government is represented by Daniel K. Greene, Trial Attorney, with whom were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director; Lisa L. Donahue, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice. Ellen Evans, Navy Litigation Office, of counsel.
