Government’s motion for summary judgment is denied. The contractor alleged the government breached two requirements contracts by ordering from other companies. The government moved for summary judgment, claiming it had not breached because the requirements contracts had expired after the base year. The board found that it was unclear whether the requirements contracts had expired. The record contained modifications exercising at least some of the option years. What’s more, the government had continued to order from the contractor after the contracts allegedly expired. These factual issues precluded summary judgment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded two contracts to Grand Strategy, LLC, to provide towels and washcloths to medical centers. The contracts were requirements contracts meaning that the VA was required to order towels and washcloths from Grand Strategy during the contract period. Both contracts had one base year plus four option years.
When the base year of each contract expired, the VA did not execute a modification to exercise the option years. Nevertheless, the VA continue to place orders, and Grand Strategy continued to fulfill them.
After a year of continuing to place orders with Grand Strategy, the VA notified that it had decided not to exercise the options on the contract. About a week later, however, the contracting officer went ahead and exercised option years one and two. The VA did not exercise option years three and four, yet the agency continued to place order with Grand Strategy during those years.
Grad Strategy filed a claim with the VA alleging that the agency had breached the requirements by ordering towels and washcloths from other vendors. The VA denied the claim. Grand Strategy appealed to the CBCA.
The VA moved for summary judgment on Grand Strategy’s appeal. The agency argued that Grand Strategy had not shown that the VA had ever exercised options past the base year of the contracts. Thus, the VA never had an obligation to only buy its requirements from Grand Strategy after the base year.
The board determined that issues of fact precluded the VA’s summary judgment motion. The file contained two signed contract modifications, which indicated the VA had exercised at least some of the option years under the contract. What’s more, the VA continued to place orders under the contracts. It was unclear whether the contracts had actually expired after the base year. The questions required additional investigation.
Grand Strategy is represented by Gaëtan Gerville-Réache and Adam D. Bruski of Warner Norcross+Judd LLP. The government is represented by Francis P. Gainer and Jennifer Claypool of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
