Penn York Construction Corp.

Court of Claims

Penn York Construction Corp.

566 F.2d 1190, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,438, 215 Ct. Cl. 899, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 243

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 30, 1977

DocketNo. 239-76

StatusPublished

This text of 566 F.2d 1190 (Penn York Construction Corp.) 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

Penn York Construction Corp., 566 F.2d 1190, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,438, 215 Ct. Cl. 899, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 243 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

-The ASBCA determined that plaintiff was entitled to an equitable adjustment for acceleration under a contract for construction of Nike-Hercules facilities in Dade County, Florida, and remanded to the parties the matter of the amount thereof, for resolution by agreement or, that failing, by unilateral determination of the contracting officer. The contracting officer allowed a stated sum on the ground of plaintiffs failure to show that the equitable .adjustment due it "should exceed the amount found by the contracting officer.” Plaintiff seeks Wunderlich Act review of this determination. In a recommended decision filed June 20, 1977 (reported in full at 23 CCF para. 81,438) Trial Judge Harry E. Wood concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, rejecting plaintiffs proffered adjusted total cost theory on the ground that it is purely theoretical and speculative, and also rejecting plaintiffs contention that the board should have compared plaintiffs actual manpower loading with its scheduled manpower loading, adjusted to reflect either the extended completion dates as [900]*900determined by the board or the actual completion dates. On September 30, 1977 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, ordered that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and dismissed the petition.

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

-The ASBCA determined that plaintiff was entitled to an equitable adjustment for acceleration under a contract for construction of Nike-Hercules facilities in Dade County, Florida, and remanded to the parties the matter of the amount thereof, for resolution by agreement or, that failing, by unilateral determination of the contracting officer. The contracting officer allowed a stated sum on the ground of plaintiffs failure to show that the equitable .adjustment due it "should exceed the amount found by the contracting officer.” Plaintiff seeks Wunderlich Act review of this determination. In a recommended decision filed June 20, 1977 (reported in full at 23 CCF para. 81,438) Trial Judge Harry E. Wood concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, rejecting plaintiffs proffered adjusted total cost theory on the ground that it is purely theoretical and speculative, and also rejecting plaintiffs contention that the board should have compared plaintiffs actual manpower loading with its scheduled manpower loading, adjusted to reflect either the extended completion dates as [900]*900determined by the board or the actual completion dates. On September 30, 1977 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, ordered that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F.2d 1190, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,438, 215 Ct. Cl. 899, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-york-construction-corp-cc-1977.