Edge Construction Co. v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 407
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- Edge sues the Government for breach of contract and wrongful termination related to a VA cemetery project worth $8,691,000.
- Contract incorporated FAR disputes, default, and changes clauses; Government terminated for default on Sept. 9, 2005.
- Edge sought eight equitable-adjustment claims (Counts I–VIII) for alleged changes and weather-related delays.
- Edge challenged default termination and sought conversion to termination for convenience (Counts IX–X).
- The court granted partial summary judgment for the Government on some counts and denied on others, with key disputes over scope, costs, and weather-related adjustments.
- A 63-day weather-related extension was granted for the ETA period; the ETA was completed mid-2005, with completion date contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edge provided a reasonable basis for equitable adjustments (Counts I, II, IV) | Edge asserts actual cost data sufficient for equitable adjustments. | Government contends Edge failed to substantiate increased costs with proper data. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the additional work (Counts III and V) fell within the contract scope | Edge contends some items were outside the original scope. | Court should interpret scope; government argues items are within scope. | Counts III and V summary judgment for Government warranted. |
| Whether Edge is entitled to compensation for unusually severe weather (Counts VI–VIII) | Edge claims extended delays and lost productivity due to severe weather. | Weather delays are excusable but not compensable absent government-caused delays. | Counts VII and VIII granted to Government; Count VI unresolved due to factual disputed weather extents. |
| Whether the termination for default was proper (Counts IX–X) | Edge argues termination was improper and should be converted to termination for convenience. | Termination justified if no reasonable likelihood of completion within time. | Summary judgment denied due to factual disputes on completion date and remaining time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1965) (actual-cost method; reasonable basis for damages)
- Daly Construction, Inc. v. Garrett, 5 F.3d 520 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (need for reasonable method for computing damages)
- H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (contract interpretation; scope determinations)
- Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 499 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (contract interpretation and equitable adjustments)
- Fraser Constr. Co. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (constructive acceleration and weather-related delays)
- Broome Constr. Inc. v. United States, 492 F.2d 835 (Ct.Cl. 1974) (unusually severe weather; extensions of time)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 323 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (default termination; factual inquiries)
- Danzig v. AEC Corp., 224 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (government-imposed delay; compensable delay)
- Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (standard for reviewing default terminations)
- Cape Ann Granite Co. v. United States, 100 Ct.Cl. 53 (Ct.Cl. 1943) (unusually severe weather determination)