BCM Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,110, 2 Cl. Ct. 602, 1983 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1767
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedApril 26, 1983
DocketNo. 686-81C
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,110 (BCM Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
BCM Corp. v. United States, 31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,110, 2 Cl. Ct. 602, 1983 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1767 (cc 1983).

Opinion

OPINION

NETTESHEIM, Judge.

This dispute, which is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to the Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 321-22 (1976), arises out of a contract awarded to plaintiff BCM Corporation (“BCM”) by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) for improvement in the electrical capacity of the old State Department Building in Washington, D.C. The General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (“GSBCA” or the “Board”) rejected BCM’s claim by decision issued November 26, 1980, BCM Corp., GSBCA, 80-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 14,798, aff’d on rehearing, GSBCA, 81-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 15,147.

BCM by its petition seeks an equitable adjustment for work performed under protest, contending that GSA was on notice, either actual or constructive, of an error in BCM’s bid and failed properly to discharge its duty to verify that bid. In its cross-motion for summary judgment, BCM also argues that its interpretation of the contract specifications was reasonable and, therefore, should prevail over defendant’s.

FACTS

The following factual recapitulation is consistent with the Board’s opinion, as amplified by facts in the record that are not inconsistent with the Board’s findings of fact.

GSA issued an invitation for bids on Contract No. GS-OOB-02657 to be opened August 17, 1976. The invitation was in two volumes, Volume I of which related to general and technical requirements (the “specifications”). By way of orientation to the work that forms the subject of BCM’s claim, electrical power comes into the State Department through a basement switchboard, where it is distributed by a system of feeders to panelboxes on each floor. The contract called for replacement of panel-boards inside panelboxes, installation of new panelboxes at new locations, and connection of new feeders from the new panel-boxes back to the old panelboards (then referred to as “pullboxes”).1 The dispute precipitating this court’s review is that GSA took the position that the contract called for installation of feeders running from the switchboard to the old panelboxes (“the subject feeders”), whereas BCM interpreted the contract to exclude this work.

The specifications included written specifications, drawings, and notes. An item known as a “Feeder Schedule” listed 60 items. The following is an excerpt from this schedule, relied upon as illustrative by the Board:

[604]*604

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

PHT Supply Corp. v. United States
71 Fed. Cl. 1 (Federal Claims, 2006)
The Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. United States
281 F.3d 1369 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Giesler v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 737 (Federal Claims, 1999)
CTA Inc. v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 684 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Dakota Tribal Industries v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,867 (Federal Claims, 1995)
Troise v. United States
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,904 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Ralph Larsen & Son, Inc. v. United States
35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,662 (Court of Claims, 1989)
Fadeley v. United States
35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,583 (Court of Claims, 1988)
Powder Horn Constructors, Inc. v. City of Florence
754 P.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1988)
Sperry Corp. v. United States
33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,234 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Straga v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,470 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Derek & Dana Contracting, Inc. v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,356 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Connelly Containers, Inc. v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,266 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Roflan Co. v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,207 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Carrier Corp. v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,717 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Mojave Enterprises v. United States
31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,507 (Court of Claims, 1983)
Degenaars Co. v. United States
31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,186 (Court of Claims, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,110, 2 Cl. Ct. 602, 1983 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bcm-corp-v-united-states-cc-1983.