The contractor moved for summary judgment on five discrete legal issues. The CBCA denied the motion, finding the contractor’s motion would not resolve any claim or defense at issue in the appeal.
Stellar J Corporation v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 6987
- The Claim – The contract required construction of a retaining wall. The contractor submitted a claim seeking compensation for additional quantities of materials used on the wall. The contractor alleged defective specifications. The agency denied the claim. The agency reasoned it was only bound to pay the designated “contract quantity”. The agency contended the contractor was seeking to recover “information only” quantities, which were supposed to be subsumed as indirect costs by the contractor.
- Contractor’s Summary Judgment Motion – The contractor appealed to the CBCA, and then moved for partial summary judgment. The contractor’s motion sought judgment on five discrete legal questions. The contractor acknowledged that resolving these issues would not be dispositive, but it would help clarify the case. The board, however, found that even if it decided these five issues, it would not resolve any claim or defense at issue in the appeal. The board found the purpose of summary judgment—expediting litigation and promoting judicial economy—would not be served by granting the contractor’s motion.
- Government’s Summary Judgment Motion – The government also moved for summary judgment, arguing its expert opinion resolved the case. But the board found the government’s expert opinion was opposed by the contractor’s expert opinions. The conflicting expert reports created issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment.
Ryan W. Dumm and Ryan M. Gilchrist of Seyfarth Shaw LLP represent the contractor. The government is represented by Rayann L. Speakman of the Federal Highway Administration.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
