Lilley-Ames Company, Inc. v. United States

COMPANY, Inc. LILLEY-AMES

v. STATES.

UNITED

No. 214-58. Claims. Court States

United

July McDermott, Philadelphia, Edwin J.

plaintiff. Wolfe, Washington, Sheldon C., J. D. Jr., with whom Orriek, was William H. Atty. Gen., Asst. for defendant. Judge. JONES, Chief is a plain- This contract action. The produce tiff contracted to and deliver bags barrack for the defendant. The alleges plaintiff that the defendant fur- whereby nished it with defective material sustained costs in excess price. plaintiff brings its bid alleged suit to recover that excess. The facts of this case are as follows. April 6, On the Armed Services Apparel Agen- Textile Procurement cy, Departments Army, Navy, Force, Air issued an invitation for bids delivery for the manufacture and of olive bags desig- denim drab barrack to certain August nated sites between and Novem- ber 1953. barrack were to be manufactured from Government-fur- nished olive drab denim. provisions Pursuant to the in bid, sample vitation secured a bag Quartermaster Corps. Plaintiff sample studied the regard to the nature bag’s construction. Plain conforming pattern a made tiff sample and to the understand 631 plain ma- ing As the that the Government-furnished specifications. they provided terial would contain a maximum specifications, tiff read the 1% percent sizing. contain cloth for Government-furnished sizing.1 ing percent a maximum 1% findings The trial in his commissioner is Sizing which chemical is additive pointed shop, has the that such as out a woven it is put before into the material plaintiff’s, up process only set the to yarns warp weav prepare to the softer, more have flexible material would has ing process. commissioner The trial great difficulty using contain- denim commonly sizing, re is which found that high degree sizing. The evi- gives to starch, cohesiveness ferred clearly dence in this case bears out fabric. to stiffen fibers and tends truth of this Plaintiff’s observation. process hand, Desizing, other on the process machines were unable Ordinarly re removal. for starch consequence, the stiff material. As a bleaching preparatory to moval is done the machines broke Plaintiff’s down. dyeing material.2 (cid:127)or operators get could not the material through the The machine folder. needles cloth, sample studying After alternately on the needle machines were sample simi- material plaintiff found the burned, misshapen, broken. These the Govern- it believed lar to that which many all difficulties and others flowed going At about the furnish. ment was from fact that the Government-fur- plaintiff invitation received time sizing nished material contained more making utility plaintiff been bid, had anticipated.5 than was a. Corps her- caps out Marine ringbone defendant. furnished twill Plaintiff sent letters successive yardage of the excess contracting some used protesting Plaintiff officer the nature herringbone made sev- twill and leftover of the Government-furnished material. bags On basis it. contracting eral plain- officer denied the pre- bags, plaintiff production of these tiff’s He that claim. reasoned Federal May 6 pared On unit labor costs. its permitted CCC-D-186 plaintiff awarded the was per- denim to contain a maximum of 13 delivery 216,- production sizing, finishing, cent and other nonfi- bags $77,- price of at a total contracting 600 brous materials. The officer 127.30.3 that concluded since the Government- only per- furnished material contained olive the Government-furnished When sizing, cent the material was not defec- by plaintiff, the received denim was drab tive. surprised discover that plaintiff was appeal, On the Armed Services Board stiffer and heavier than was August Appeals 14, 1956, of Contract in the Government both plaintiff herringbone decided that entitled to an twill out the cloth adjustment equitable upon since the plaintiff Board made the of which that the concluded unit labor costs. Government-furnished based fully material was in accord with the contained furnished denim specifications. interpreted percent The Board nonfibrous ma- approximately apply. JAN-D-5047 about 7 of which terials specification required however, sizing.4 seen, That the Gov- As we ernment-furnished denim should operating assump- not ex- Findings Finding 2(d). 6 and 7. 5. 1. Finding 2(c). Finding (b). 10(a) 6.

2. 2(d). Finding Finding 7. 5.

3. Finding 10(c). yz it based its unit labor costs for content. ceed specifica- tract likewise conformed to this inter- the basic Board concluded pretation specification. MIL-B-2378a[A],8 required that tion, It is ele- de- mental contract law that where the con- denim the Government-furnished specifications ambiguous, tract satis- are produce fabric with sized so toas ambiguity against re- factory sewing Board should be qualities. The construed contracting Contracting their officer author. Wunderlich manded the case to the States, 876, Co. United amount v. 143 878. Ct.Cl. as to for a determination January 14, We think that as a matter of plaintiff law Gov- On should recover. fully contracting that not ernment-furnished material was decided 1957, the officer specifications. equitable ad- in accord with the We plaintiff entitled to appeal, justment Upon on note that $4,700.44. this was the Board’s conclu- of Army 30, sion as well.11 1957, Contract December amount Appeals Panel that decided says Plaintiff that the Board’s decision adjustment be' equitable should of the $12,996.60. arbitrary sup- capricious is and not paid been has This amount ported by substantial evidence because plaintiff. the sum allowed is sufficient. De- not fendant also attacks Board’s decision principal in this case issue The alleges that the Board has been ar- simple Did the Government- is a one. bitrary capricious because as a mat- sizing more furnished material contain specifications permitted ter of law the specifica provided for than that the defendant to furnish denim contain- vigorously on relies tions? Defendant sizing. percent 7 As we have said which CCC-D-186 Federal says above, accept we cannot defendant’s more not cloth shall contain that the theory that its material conformed to finishing percent of for class C than 13 specifications as a matter of law. Conse- for its materials. Plaintiff nonfibrous quently, we find no merit in defendant’s Military Specification, relies counterclaim. JAN-D-504,9 in the basic referenced dyed provides specification, that which plaintiff The contends that it is than iy2 fabric shall not contain more damages beyond entitled additional sizing. reject percent We defendant’s plain allowed those the Board. The theory entitled it that CCC-D-18610 theory regard generally in this tiff’s plaintiff con material furnish the taining appears to be that it should recom sizing. percent The words pensed experienced total loss it “sizing” material” and “nonfibrous example, plain under this contract. For interchangeable terms. Nonfibrous not actually tiff sustained a total increase sizing but is not iden material includes percent. only in labor costs of 60 But permits 13 it. CCC-D-186 tical with portion of this increase can be ascribed material; it does not nonfibrous supplied fact that the defendant to the According sizing. plain to the refer to high plaintiff material of a understanding, tiff’s degree sizing. of than low rather plaintiff sizing per spelled of out the amount that only course can recover in the Government-furnished missible expenses occasioned from those nishing the fur JAN-D-504 which stated highly-sized denim not be in excess may defendant. include percent. Plaintiff found the material arising performance 11/2 from the all costs consistent with this recovery. as the basis for its the contract herringbone interpretation. obligation twill under no The defendant “reimbursing [plaintiff] to make the it used which whatever Finding 2(c). Finding 2(b). 10. 8. Finding Finding 2(d). 20. 11.

9. notwithstanding problem, incurred, their be the should losses it equitable adjustment.” Co. Construction basis Christensen nature.” [Emphasis supplied.] See States, 514. 72 Ct.Cl. v. United Company, a Wisconsin Belt also Chain Application percentage of the actual States, F. Corporation United v. 66.77 for overhead rather than bid Both Supp. 701, 127 Ct.Cl. percentage estimate of 22.8 re Board Armed Services decision of the quires us, slight course, to make a independent Appeals Contract adjustment profit total all findings show trial commissioner of our adjust owance.14 We find that these labor percent increase only a 35 $17,233.13,15 ments entitle the furnishing of attributable costs is $12,996.60 instead of the amount of substantially denim. sized allow, which the Board did a difference $4,236.53, of a result which we con plaintiff 22.8 Board allowed The fident the Board would have reached had using amount reached presented it been with factual the same figure over- increased this evidence. percentage obtained was 22.8 The head. Board plaintiiFs The bid estimate. Judgment plain- will be entered for the percentage be- this apparently applied tiff $4,236.53. in the amount of Defend- be- adduced had been no cause evidence ant’s counterclaim will be dismissed. indicating plaintiff’s actual what fore it It is so ordered. the evidence From were. overhead costs court, however, we taken before plaintiff’s actual overhead found that DURFEE, LARAMORE, MADDEN, percent of its direct not 22.8 costs were Judges, WHITAKER, concur. costs, percent.13 61.77 but labor Findings of Fact measuring think We having court, The highly considered arising the evi- from the plaintiff’s loss dence, argument the briefs and of coun- denim, actual we should use the sized sel, report of and the Trial experienced Commissioner percentage overhead Gamer, following R. Saul makes the hypotheti find- plaintiff rather than ings of fact: Dredge In Lakes Great cal bid estimate. F.Supp. States, United v. & Dock Co. going 1. Prior to 1949 and back to 504, 558, this court was 923, 119 Ct.Cl. 1864, Lilley-Ames Company (under applying presented the choice names) but similar various had been an proven hypothetical or a actual estimate corporation engaged Ohio in the manu- measuring damages. figure in We cost garments, specializing facture page at 925 of 96 F. in that case said lodge regalia type of prin- business. Its page Supp., 558 of Ct.Cl.: at place cipal Columbus, of business inwas During this, II, such as Ohio. “In a case where the World War it had a contracting approved plain- officer number of Government contracts in addi- regular operation, tion to its method business but tiff’s thereaft- er, plain- 1949, have found that the and about we encountered where finan- Subsequently, increased costs cial difficulties. actual tiff’s one reasonable, Kay necessary and we think William H. became interested in contemplated purchasing company that those the assets of the contract costs, and not in control of company costs and those actual agreed hypothetical to sell alternative solu- such assets to some him. To Finding 25(a). For the breakdown of the 15. various dam- 12. age comprising total, items see find- (c), ing 25(b), (d). Finding 25(b). 13. Finding 25(c).

month and November to be designated ing, by “small business ment TAP-30-352-53-503”) For Bids of “The which the amended tioned. Navy OD [olive company Services Kay, Inc., respectively, of Bill of Bill consolidation the Oldsmobile b.ile corporation owned or controlled rations, the U. S. transfer Ames Company, gust effected Ohio, Oldsmobile ganized Company, assets transferred owned 26, 1950, Company effect Columbus, name 23, Company made Agency, (a) Kay, Kay Company, 1955, one which Agreement was under which Lilley-Ames Company Division Chromite Textile being transfer Air (designated Inc. was Inc. and On drab] August, September, in various controlled Oldsmobile Inc.” Company, Company, a with the destinations existing accomplished to Bill Force, Departments of April principal place Ohio. name consolidated changed 1953. Bids further which operated Company. On Inc. petition company, former of Consolidation several Kay, issued assets, another amounts under the by Kay, name of On November the name Apparel Procure- Company concerns is the 1953, Bill under changed U. “Invitation bags, deliveries corporation In Inc. during herein an Invitation Kay S. other into Lilley-Ames Lilley-Ames The corporation of business style 1952, the having a Division to certain the name known After the Chromite Bill Bill October, to retain furnish- only” of Oldsmo- and laws August on Au- Armed a new Army, Lilley- corpo- actual under made each cap- Kay Kay said Kay No. Bill or- “Reference Invitation follows: “Para. 3.2.3— “Para. 3.2.2.2— tioned, provided “Para. mentioned “Exceptions “Para. 2.1— cifications, circulars, supplies or pected The attached all instructions so will The ^[*****] ****** “(d) “10. ^[******] B—2378A: * 3.2.1.1—-Delete “Terms to examine the Mistake. Bids.— provided Specifications: at the * services. Failure to Bids”, mildew resistant ment ance with lowing: ‘except that the Rope, Type I.’ thread dew 3530A.’ ed, No. and mildew resistant treated. accordance with Class 1 ‘3.2.2.2—Treatment T-191 and substitute ‘Textile Delete Delete the title and Conditions of “Schedule” bidder’s Specification * pertaining mildew Bidders are will cotton, hereinabove pertinent part shall drawings, water 6—Add the Schedule, Test Methods’ resistant and as follows: MIL-T-16070, risk. * be in accord- resistance in hereinabove solid be treated substitute repellent of CCC- MIL-T- * * * — MIL— braid- spe- treat- ex- men- do mil- fol- ” tions stated tached Schedule “Military ufactured out should of this Invitation The Invitation “subject [A] dated conform Specification herein”, of material January 1951 with provided Terms For General and were Bids and the requirements of and Conditions MIL-B-2378a Provisions.” to be furnished excep- man- at- “CCC-T-191b—Textile “CCC-D-186— “Federal ^[*****] Specifications: Amendment Denim; Unshrunk dated dated 6/26/52 3/30/44 Test 5/15/51 Methods, dated by the Government ^[******] “Military Specifications: “JAN-D-504— “Material ^[*****] to Be Furnished Dyeing ton ed 9/30/47 Duck Processes and Twill Aftertreat- by the for Cot- dat- may be difficulties or copy of this booklet will be furnished quest ****** prospective possibility use reduced to a minimum. purchasing ill the treated materials contractors effects experiencing arising office. upon any out re- A find- All materials and Contractor: “Samples: samples Two will ings the Gov- to be furnished inspection available for this in- at labels, including ernment, all addition, stallation at all times. In the contractor be furnished samples a limited number of will be requirements set shall conform to may available to bidders and be bor- specification. applicable forth in the upon receipt rowed each. $10.00 money CCC- order, Federal “Note: Certified check or made May T-191b, dated 15 out to the order of the Treasurer June States, 1 dated 26 accept- Amendment of the United will be Methods’, samples form ‘Textile Test ed. These will be distribut- ed, for Bids. available, this Invitation to the extent applications order and de- Eelating Material “Provisions ” * * * posits are received. by the Furnished Government: Be By Provisions”, Furnished Material To Be “a. The attached “General mentioned, provided (as The Government: hereinabove Schedule) pertinent amended Cloth, Cotton, Price Unit part as follows: oz., Denim, 9.85 Unshrunk, OD-7, “ * ** Changes 2. yd. 28"...........$.53 Contracting may “The Officer at * * * * * * any by order, time, a written and “Chemically Treated Government sureties, notice to the make without Property: Furnished general changes, scope the within contract, any this in “Prospective this one or more of contractors following: (i) drawings, the advised the de- procurement Property signs, specifications, or Furnished where the Government supplies to be furnished are supplied connection with to be in be ' specially pre-treated with manufactured for the be Gov- will contract agents therewith; pur- in for the ernment accordance chemical certain (ii) shipment rendering prod- packing; method of or the finished pose of delivery. ravaging (iii) place any If effects resistant uct change termites, rot, or other such causes an increase or mildew, of, in or in use. decrease the cost the time encountered elements natural required performance coming for, of this contact in direct Operators contract, equitable adjustment Furnished Ma- the Government price working in room shall be made the contract . in a where or terial delivery both, schedule, or or of dust concentrations excessive writing may shall be modified contract in fill the air be therefrom lint accordingly. Any by physical claim the Con- subject adverse to certain adjustment under this book- tractor An instructional reactions. ‘Occupational must be asserted within 30 entitled, Health clause let by days receipt Army from the date Your Con- Protection problems Contractor of the notification of tract’, outlines change: Provided, however, suggests preventive That volved Contracting Officer, if he decides adoption of which measures action, justify provided per- eral Provisions” which the facts such any may upon such tinent as follows: act receive and any prior to “ at time claim asserted * * * Samples for Loan.— payment final contract. under this available, “When a similar agree any adjustment Failure speci- to the article described concerning ques- dispute a shall be a necessarily fications, but not in exact meaning of fact within therewith, loan- bewill conformance ed to this contract entitled the clause of “Disputes.” upon any responsible bidder nothing However, this request deposit (amount a Contractor clause shall excuse the schedule) shown re- insure proceeding from changed. the contract turn without mutilation. This de- ceed hereunder, sion. conclusive. appeal opportunity to be heard clusive; evidence Pending petent so fraudulent, appeal is his Contracting unless “12. appeal thereof to mail or otherwise this ing duce his “Except as otherwise ^[******] imply grossly days mailing Contracting Officer, Contractor the decision duly authorized diligently contract, copy, question of fact Disputes agreement * * *” determined proceeding Contracting hearing addressed jurisdiction provided bad final decision of a Contracting taken, decision erroneous arbitrary, capricious, or Officer In connection with support faith, which contractor with the any dispute otherwise Contractor shall shall be afforded of such Contractor. . the decision and in shall be decided by under date of that, shall be final and Officer furnish is not a court of of its representative Officer’s arising under appeals performance who writing and Secretary or and to offer be provided in if no such may appeal necessarily accordance furnishing Secretary, receipt of a written final and concern- disposed shall dispute appeal. Within clause, shall, deci- com- been copy pro- any re- an . visions”, part as follows: “Government Furnished that the Contractor meet such ty or ered to stated stated in type suitable plies or inafter referred Government Furnished or Furnished toer nished to the Treasurer nection posit check Also accepted. “ * * * schedule or the parcel post turned within 10 States. paid. Deposits must of the article in “(a) The Government shall deliv- is not delivered performance such time or performance based Government Contractor under contract, agency samples Government attached was will be with Property.— services Deposits money Contractor, upon sufficient time to property”). * * or Contractor at the so 3. Government refunded schedule or express, provided dates. times, loaned are to order dates will furnish to as “Government specifications * under the terms property Furnished of cash will not be use form ” days by be furnished expectation good the Contractor document labeled will be deliv- made the Contract- this contract property In the of a certified charges pre- Property upon submitted to the United use condition. which the if not delivery delivery proper- payable insured pertinent in con- return enable (here- times event state Fur- that sup- of a re- so Pro- shall, requested if to the “General Officer Attached Provisions” Contractor, a document labeled “Additional Gen- make determination of t,he delay “Military Specifications Contractor occasioned the grant thereby, the Con- shall Dyeing “JAN-D-504— and Aftertreat- tractor a reasonable extension ing Processes for Cotton delivery respect of or time in such Duck and Twill. performance Govern- dates. The ***** ment the Con- shall be liable to damages profit tractor for by or loss Requirements “3. delivery any delay reason of * * * * * any or all failure to deliver or “3.2 Materials. property, ex- Government Furnished cept delay or in case of such “3.2.1 Denim, unshrunk. —The denim failure, request upon the written type shall II, Speci- conform to C of class adjust- Contractor, equitable an fication CCC-D-186. delivery ment shall be made in the price, performance dates, “3.2.1.1 or or both, Color and treatment. —The any vat-dyed denim shall piece, yarn, other contractual thereby, provision dyeing, stock in ac- approved affected to match the * * pro- procedures shade of water-repellent drab *, with the olive cordance 7No. fication provided uary 1951,” tract vided for in the clause of (b) As set requirements entitled MIL-B-2378a[A] forth ‘Changes.’ above, exceptions as were “Military Speci- should ” dated this con- Invitation conform 26 Jan- shall treated, conforming such a manner satisfactory Specification JAN—D—504. ^[*****] singed, toas desized, produce qualities. type mildew-resistant and finished in a fabric with I, class denim B Rope, cotton, “3.2.3 the docu- set forth in Invitation and solid braided, No. Specifica- diameter, %.6-inch ments thereto. attached Said MRT.—The cotton rope Bag, “Military tion, Specification, shall type Specifica- conform labeled II of Barrack, O.D.”, pertinent MIL-C-2519. provided follows: ^[*****] Types stitching. “3.3.1.1 —Stitch- Scope “1. ing, except bar-tacking, shall conform to DDD-S-751, as follows: covers olive “1.1 This bag, denim, drab, of one cotton For all stitch- type size. ing except the stitching Specifications, Pub- Other Applicable “2. lications, Drawings dicated “Z” on draw- following Specifications. “2.1 —The ing ........Type. 301, 8-10 stitches to specifications, of the effect issue in the inch. part bids, for form a invitation

date of stitching For specification: of this indicated “CCC-D-186— “Federal ^[*] Specifications ^[*] Denim; ^[*] Unshrunk ^{[*] [*]} ing ........Type “Z” on draw- the inch. 401, 8-10 stitches chain stitching por- appear shall on Textiles; Speci- General “CCC-T-191— bag. outside of the fications, Methods, Test Supplement Type stitching.— “3.3.1.1.1 thereto. ***** stitching Thread in breaks shall be Requirements. “E. Detail 1-inch at than not less backstitched Stitching Construction, weight, “E-l. shall be back- each break. breaking strength.— prevent ravel- ends to at the stitched Type I made “E-la. denim shall be except turned ing, ends where yarn. filling warp other colored down or held in hem under yarn stitching. be shall be white or tinted. shall Thread tension there properly so that maintained Type “E-lb. II denim shall be made stitching and that no will loose be yard warp with colored in both the the cen- in will embedded the lock filling. sewed. ter of the materials will be maintained at overstitched not Thread “3.3.1.1.2 each no loose break. Thread breaks Type properly in stitching.” less than stitching shall be kOl so that tension stitching.— 1% inches there shall brous) materials.” “E-2 Finish. —The B, C, and D of tain not more Class A and ^[******] than percent for Classes finishing (nonfi- percent for shall con- Military Specification (d) JAN-D- (a) (c) subparagraph in As shown September 30, and la- dated Specification above, CCC-D-188 Federal Army-Navy Specification— “Joint beled “Refer- in under the Schedule was listed Aftertreating Dyeing Processes for in Specifications,” and as set forth ence Twill”, to in is referred Duck and Cotton subparagraph (b) above, made was also subpara- Schedule, as set forth part Military MIL-B- Specification Military above, (a) graph as as in well Specification CCC- 2378Á. Said Federal MIL-B-2378A, Specification as set forth Unshrunk”, Denim; D-186, “for dated subparagraph (b) provided above. It 30, 1944, pertinent provided in March part pertinent as follows:. part as follows: Specifications. Applicable “A. Specifications. Applicable “A. following specifications, “A-l. The following speci- Federal “A-l. The issue effect on date of invi- fication of effect date the issue bids, part form tation for bids, form a shall invitation specification: specification: of this CCC-T-191, Textiles; General ^[******] Specifications, Methods. Test “Federal Textiles; General “CCC-T-191 — Types, Classes, “B. and Grade. Specifications, Test Methods, Supple- Types. shall be of “B-l. —Denim following ment types, specified thereto. invitation bids: Types “B. and Classes. Types. Dyeing process “Type “B-l. I.—Whiteback. — cotton and twill covered duck “Type Filling. II.—Colored shall be the follow- ing types, specified in the contract Types “B-2. I and II Classes.— (see H-2): par. order or following classes, shall be of the as specified in invitation bids: dyeing. “Type I —Vat yard

“Class A.—2.45 dyeing. “Type II —Mineral yard —2.20 B. dyeing. “Type III —Sulfur ^[*] ***** D. C. —2.00 —1.78 yard yard. by “B-2. Classes.— ess for cotton duck and twill covered Aftertreating proc- shall be of the following specified soap classes, aluminum and/or H-2): (See par. (or formate). acetate Other water- or order contract repellent may if be used treatments Water-repellent after- “Class A— contracting approved by officer treating process. Army purchases and the bureau Water-repellent “Class B— Navy purchases. concerned for after- mildew-resistant ***** treating process. “E-2b. Class B.—

***»*(cid:127)“ “E-2b(l). Water-repellent.- Requirements. “E. Detail —Fab- process ric B finished class shall Dyeing.— “E-l. water-repellent specified be made Type “E-la. I.—The fabric shall be paragraph E-2a(l). dyed dyestuffs. with sulfur-free vat (2). Mildew-resistant. —Fab- “E-2b “E-la(l). Preparation. —Fabric process shall B class finished rics containing dyed with to be by the mildew-resistant made be type process, I so shall be desized inhibitor deposition a mildew dyed shall contain fabric minimum kind the fabric. sizing. iy2 percent not more than inhibitor amounts maximum ****** specified in be as shall * * * H-2.) par. (See Aftertreating.— order. or “E-2. A.— Class “E-2a. Army. other- “E-2b(2)b. —Unless specified, and twill shall Water-repellent. duck “E-2a(l). wise —Fab- in accord- resistant process made mildew A shall class finished rics requirements shown water-repellent ance with made alone, II.” in combina- table of waxes use “H-2. “H. Notes. ^[******] Requests, requisitions, sched- “(b) Type and “(a) Title, number and date of (See pars. specification. B-l and class required. B-2.) ules, and contracts orders should “(c) cloth, Finished width of if * * * following specify required. the features: * * * Bids, especially in the For to paragraph Invitation required. “(d) Color MIL-B-2378A, “ set 3.2.1.1 of max- and (e) minimum and Kind finding 2(b), providing that in forth mildew imum amounts desized, singed, “The denim shall be par. E-2b (See hibitor. produce finished in such a manner as (2).) satisfactory sewing quali- a fabric with inspection. “(f) final Place of E-la(l) ties”, paragraph of JAN- *» -» *(cid:127) finding provid- D-504, 2(d) set forth in copy of (a) a obtained Plaintiff sizing containing be that “Fabric and, in accord- For Bids Invitation the dyed type process, I be desized shall provisions in contained the ance with dyed not contain so that fabric shall General paragraph Additional 22 of the sizing”, more mean than 1% finding 2(a), Provisions, in forth set that denim furnished cloth to be bag. sample At- procured barrack bag as the Government be desized so tag sample stat- tached ing percent siz- not to than contain more 1% pertinent as follows: in ing and that be flexible such cloth would A “Important! Not This Is sewing satisfactory qualities. and have Speci- Sample, Applicable Standard herring- specifications Since fications, And In Invitation Cited cap bone twill used con- for the marine (Ne- Proposal Request And Bid Or gotiated provided tract “shall con- that such cloth Issued, Procurement) When sizing or tain more than Requirements Govern Construction gen- material”, nonfibrous other Sample.” For This appearance in eral and feel of the cloth bag herringbone sample twill and the nature what the exact not shown It is similar, plaintiff cloth were concluded bag was, plain- sample but bags cloth for the barrack that denim denim. be tiff considered substantially flexi- would have the same time, plaintiff, under a con- At that sewing bility qualities as the marine (N50M-10856) Marine with the tract herringbone cap Plaintiff twill. assumed utility engaged producing Corps, in that the would, cloth the barrack denim herringbone twill cloth. caps out of sewability concerned, as insofar contract, cloth, cap described Under substantially conform to that contained Green, oz., Twill, “Herringbone as bag.' sample Accordingly, al- in the supplied 40",” the Gov- was likewise though plaintiff’s employ no knew one speci- ernment, applicable one of anything manufacturing about or (Military pertaining thereto fications weaving relating processes denim (MC)) pro- Specification MIL-C-15782B general, particular or textiles in or forth, fully vided, more set as hereinafter dyeing processes or re- aftertreatment closely singed, “shall cloth that such lating denim, or the difference between mercerized, shall contain not more sizing materials, and other non-fibrous percent of nonfi- other understanding as insofar either the vari- * * *.” brous material provisions specifica- ous several general appearance By feel, relating otherwise, plain- thereto tions being

herringbone twill cloth then used using yard- felt safe excess tiff some cap contract and the cloth con- remaining age cap from the marine bag had, tained herringbone produc- twill for test tract gen- weight, flexibility, and insofar purposes computing as a basis for sewing concerned, characteristics eral submitting a bid for its costs the bar- qualities. substantially the same Plain- Assuming contract. rack accu- sewing quality no had encountered tiff interpretation racy producing caps marine difficulties specifications, applicable and the cor- machines it had. Fur- assumption employees rectness denim thermore, plaintiff’s and offi- supplied would, specifications insofar construed cials referred

641 concerned, be sub- qualities front and the two back darts and stantially two similar to that contained side darts shall be turned herring- cap back. and the marine use twill, plaintiff’s so decision to bone “3.8 Visor.—Visor shall be made herringbone cap test twill marine two-plies herringbone of twill, of re- production purposes was reasonable. interlining inforced with an of MIL-C-813, (b) Military three-plies Specification of duck. be Visor shall quilted July 28, “Cap, Util- stitching, dated entitled with seven rows ity” applicable equally Marine spaced. edge also to said Outside Corps contract, provided visor and strip shall be bound with a follows: the twill cut inches on the 1%6 wide straight bias, edges or with the raw Requirements “3. strip single turned under and sample. re- “3.1. Standard all —In type stitched with BSc-1. Visor specifically spects covered single shall be crown, stitched to out- specification, utility cap be shall band, sweatband, side and and shall (See equal sample. to the standard 2)4 measure finished inches at wide 6.2.) center front. if if if if # # “3.9 Outside band.—The outside “3.3 Material. approximately band 3)4 shall be cut be Cloth.—The cloth shall “3.3.1 joined wide, inches at back with herringbone drab, twill, cotton olive type seam opened SSa-1 with seam conforming Corps Specifi- to Marine pressed. Band shall be folded in Herring- Cotton, ‘Cloth, cation titled two-ply half Upper form band. bone Twill.’ edge single folded of band shall be stitched to crown and cotton duck lower raw “3.3.2 Duck.—The edges gray, texture, of band and crown 8 hard shall be

shall be No. conforming single turned under type I inch and of Marine % ‘Duck; Band Corps stitched. shall titled measure fin- approximately Cotton, ished 1)4 (Army, Plied Yarn inches wide. Num- Tent-Duck).’ bered, and “3.10 Sweatband. —The sweat- ing. conform to stitch “3.6 ^[******] —All Stitches, seams, seaming type stitching and stitch- shall band shall be cut seam inches pressed. type SSa-1, wide Lower raw joined with seam approximately at back edge opened with side of crown as follows: 2% front, tapering to front darts shall be turned to the made of shall be looper ly darts side. the inside When stitch spaced not less “3.7 1)4 Specification DDD-S-751, inches shall be double two Darts shall be inches or under thread shall vertical than 12 stitches to provided one Crown.—Crown high, point. wide type 401 is back, piece darts, folded cap. at Front folded; bottom of approximately placed approximate- material and eight two on each used, shall and back the two Two evenly be inch. with cap, on ameter. measure vided ished diameter color of per edge shall Upper side, band shall der “3.11 * brass, % single as shown approximately 1)4 be worked with cap. inch and raw Eyelets. Cap approximately finished; enameled stitched to inside of four be turned under band edge Band shall measure fin- cap, * single eyelets, — shall not be shall % figure green * inch shall be made be turned un- stitched. shall inches wide. two on thread and % inside di- * to match stitched inch in )4 Eyelets each inch pro- cap. Up- *

642

tained “6. Notes Quartermaster, Marine ^[******] “6.2 Standard upon application sample may Corps De- be Depot ob- had tied sewing and the (principally into bundles. be operation. requisite number trimmed for open Thereafter, (for loose seams), folded and inspected threads) bag sewing operations Broad were pot Supplies, 1100 South The various forelady, performed by com- Street, Philadelphia Pa.” a petent employee, and experienced Military Specification MIL-C-15782B by stopwatch a time as to obtain timed so mentioned, provided (MC), hereinabove study. time performance of the In the part: study, for used various machines Requirements “3. sewing operations run at were several margin sample. fin- speed, “3.1 Standard in order to allow half —The equal safety. adjustment on be made ished cloth shall One was bartacking respects op- not all the machine used for the standard specifi- Otherwise, specifically machines covered eration. all the 6.2). (see operation used their cation used were closely mitted. loading contain sizing * * ^[******] “3.7 Finish.—The breaking or *_ singed, materials to not more than other nonfibrous The use strength mercerized, increase will 2 finishing or and shall shall weight per- be 250 various hour 4,000 bags spread 100-ply inspect, then ing, joining production bags; form. day, operations fold and bags; as follows: sewing halves, for each hemming, study tie, 480 bottoms, the basis of established operator reinforcements, bags; bags; high. bags; 450 bartack- cutting, on the bags; an 8- trim, rates twill time studies required Philadelphia “6. Notes Supplies.]” X* n ^[******] “6.2 Standard material, plaintiff standard Using -It for the on the various the marine Marine sample, address (cid:127)H' making sample. For access purpose *X* Corps Depot of made herringbone -X* up operations running barrack Bale.........................0090 several [the (cid:127)X’ Hem ........................0150 Cutting Join halves...................0150 Bartack Sew Sewing reinforcements ....... follows: Trim, inspect, study On the above-described bottoms..................0150 established direct labor costs (drawcord)...........0200 ......................0148 fold & tie.......0150 basis, Per $0.0282 time bag bag. parts First were cut. sewing principal operations involved Total labor.............. $0.1320 sewing (a) rein- thereafter were on four seams, costs materials to the inside of various forcements (b) (rope, the contractor on each half of the bottom furnished baling bag marking having supplies bag, thread, ma- to each side closing terials) securing halves, (c) bags, quo- were obtained been cut in suppliers joining tations which consisted of two halves calculat- bag. calling going per together, operation at Overhead ed $0.148 cal- eight per profit at culated at $0.03 over thicknesses material two at bag. bartacking Thus, points, (dj openings price base unit $0.02 rope putting established. To on of $0.33 the drawcords base freight hemming price, rope, (e) after unit added for the in- each destination, prices quoted being cord, to be sertion of the which was the last 216,600 quantity required destina- ed entire units on f. o. b. to be based Plaintiff itself had con- bid. tion. Sewing Singer tacted the Machine Com- calculating a study method The time pany to ascertain what machines would customary plaintiff’s labor unit cost was job efficiently do the most and- felt as- obtaining costs. Assum- method of equipment adequate sured its was for the plaintiff’s inter- the correctness . purpose. concerning pretations the and conclusions (c) May 26,1953, it would receive On nature the denim cloth defendant issued plaintiff, Government, set the hereinabove also under said as name of “The Lilley-Ames forth, Company, “Supply the labor costs of a direct Inc.” $0.1320 plaintiff which reasonable. Contract” calculated was Award on the basis of the bid by plaintiff, submitted sisting Contract con- the price (a) on the unit Básed $0.33 Bids, of the Invitation For the finding 4, calculated as set forth Bid, Schedule, the General Provisions Lilley- plaintiff, under “The the name together Award, any and the docu- Inc.,” Company, April 21, Ames ments attached thereto. per submitted bid as follows: $0.356 bags 36,000 dur- unit for ing to be delivered 6. When the Government-furnished C., September Charlotte, by plaintiff, 1953 N. at denim was received it was totaling $12,816; considerably per for unit $0.359 stiffer heavier than 90,300 bags during bag Octo- to be delivered both the cloth in the which totaling Memphis, Tenn., plaintiff ber 1953 at cap had received the marine 36,000 $32,417.70; herringbone per unit for plaintiff $0.355 twill out of which bags during production bags to be November had delivered made the test Valley, J., totaling $12,- upon 1953 Read at N. price. which it had based its unit 780; bags 54,30(3 adversely unit for This $0.352 factor affected almost all during operations entering be delivered 1953 at November of the various labor totaling Cumberland, $19,- Pa., production bags. New into the 113.60, making 216,600 following total of at ways a are some of the in which price $77,127.30. operations a total In accord- the various were so affected: paragraph ance with 22 of “Addi- (a) Closing joining (finding 2(a)) tional General Provisions” making production halves: In the test plaintiff sample bag returned the to de- bags, plaintiff had used a machine fendant. operation for this which was a called (b) May 23, 1953, On defendant con- “Wilcox & Gibbs off-the-arm fell lock” survey plaintiff’s plant generally ducted a to as- This machine. machine is among things, certain, heavy sewing being work, other the condi- used for adequacy equip- plaintiff’s light a considered machine for suitable any weight ment and whether additional However, medium materials. machinery necessary perform perform joining opera- was able to proposed during satisfactorily runs, accordance with tion the test time, going eight bid. At that over the thicknesses de- single- had, plant locations, difficulty. in two 65 above without scribed type This machines, needle chines, ma- double-needle of machine has folders on it to make bartaekers, as well as 3 work and to double-needle fold the seam cutting tables, spreader, a knives. under. On material furnished machinery good condition, defendant, all in this machine was unable Survey Reports, operation, proving perform and two Plant light one for too plant, indicated, purpose. so each as the Plaintiff then well tried to machinery lacking operation perform fact that no was' with a heavier performance machine, Special”. of As called “Union contract. How- survey, Surveying ever, result Offi- also machine was unsatisfac- tory purpose. Finally, cer recommended award- a thira Bartacking openings (e) heavy being the drawcord machine, type extra bag. mate- and the drawcord out- Special, procured from Union heavy possible at machine, rial it was not had was so of-town and this get did, presser on the bar- it, foot after first to tacking “tractor feed” so-called enough high ma- capable machine many adjustments, prove to be necessary get terial to under It was Four of it. operation. performing ground feet, presser them utilized remove the rented and machines these off, grooves them so operations. through and cut end of contract large very num- difficulty en- force A the material in. was However, considerable performing with ber needles were broken to time even from time countered speed of bartacking operation. The the heavy Special. Needles Union the extra bartacking be cut had to burn, the machines frequently and would hot became per 1,100 approximately stitches to down to difficult It was still bend break. minute. through folder the stiff material feed the considerably operation was and the Cutting. contract, (f) cap the On the go would The material slowed down. cutting electrically operated, machine, it through would at times that so thick through successfully thick- had cut Although machine folder. the break On the instant material. nesses minute, per 4,500 up for stitches was set on tract, plaintiff’s was based estimate 3,000. approximately to down was cut cutting spreads of 100-150 denim in the high. cutting However, knife was operation. the A (b) The reinforcement go through single-needle these amounts. Singer” not able to sew- “241 so-called got spreads of opera- finally Plaintiff down to employed on this was machine (plies) get- between 50 thicknesses Difficulty and 75 encountered was tion. ting go through, and presser the knife heavy before would material under the the amounts, knife Also, at these the even reduced needles fre- machine. of the foot opera- smoked. quently on machine and broke this tion. sewing machines, approximate- 7. The contract, ly First, on this Sewing of which were used sides. (c) bottoms to frequency, such due broke down with the two- & later Wilcox Gibbs material, largely Special nature of the to the stiff machines were also Union needle mechanic, repair operators operation. a maintenance and for this used independent contractor, feeding an was difficulty who was the material had employed premises Here, too, on the full through to remain machine folder. during performance go the sew- time would occasion the through ing operations on this contract. Normal- thick that the folder broke. so ly a man come such maintenance would hot and burn or became would Needles break, only reducing irregularly In speed as needed. thus instance, operation too, machine would some- an entire operation. For this operation out of as a be thrown speed had be reduced times of the machines requiring needle, 3,000 of a broken 4,500 result stitches minute. services the mechanic. The immediate Hemming. operation, (d) For this required readjustment constant machines single-needle Singer machine was needles, speeds and their had and new machine, adjust- used, considerably. result, cut down As to be enlarged feeding sur- ment which speed possible to attain not it was needles, face, with the use heavier originally production estimated. accomplish the work. able How- shown, however, bend, how ever, It much too the needles would here greater plaintiff’s costs break. The material reason arid hard burn having burning fingers, operators’ to maintain machine main- stinging them, man on full-time which also tenance basis than contributed they operation. he have been had serviced the slowdown irregular normal, bags study make than were machines on the time herringbone basis. made from the twill. contract, plain- 8. Prior the instant Had denim cloth furnished de- bags. produced tiff had never possessed substantially fendant the same However, past experience in plaintiff’s herring- qualities as either the clothing manufacturing tai- items and bag cloth, sample bone twill cloth or the loring generally sufficient work original equipment would have bags produce have enabled it adequate permit production been difficulty successfully without undue of the number of called sewing qualities com- out of cloth with provided contract within the time limits parable to cloth equipment the contract. With sewing qual- herringbone twill. cloth, plaintiff produced could herringbone ities of twill cotton high 4,000 bags assuming per day, type in ma- had used delay-causing no other How- contract, factors. cap in the rine and the cloth ever, equipment, such and the cloth bag, prebid sample as well as in desized actually furnished, possible it was not approximately generally, the denim are any for herringbone achieve such rate of twill Both same. denim production, production per the machine Herringbone are weaves. of medium being greatly reduced. sewing was, twill insofar as characteris- sufficiently concerned, similar tics are by 9. denim The cloth furnished de- generally to ade- desized denim constitute fendant was manufactured quate experience such for the use of by Export defendant the Cone Herringbone twill and denim denim. Co., City. Commission Inc. of York New However, there are both cotton twills. was cloth made to accord with the categories. Den- are twill differences in requirements Type II, of of Class C Fed- twill, type broken im a so-called is eral CCC-D-186, per- which long fibers, and short while made out of up percent finishing (non- mitted to 13 interlacings herringbone the other has fibrous) materials. It not was desized long on- fibers made out of combed-out by manufacturer, the nor was it treated herringbone ly. weight the twill resistance, repellence,. water water cap contract 9 used for the was ounces or mildew resistance. Tests made against yard per square as 9.85 ounces Army Quarter- defendant in the U.S. Because the two materi- for the denim. Corps Laboratory samples master on 47 the differ construction and als in weave material showed that its “size sizing yarns involved, if no nature of the ranged per- content” from a low of 8.35 or materials were added other nonfibrous high percent, cent to a 12.1 with an fabric, denim would be some- each average for samples overall all the herringbone than the twill. what stiffer percent. 9.7 sizing equal Similarly, amounts of if each, Sizing (a) denim would were added 10. is an additive chem- interlacing stiffer, put since ical is also which into the material before herringbone weave construction would it It is prepare is woven. inserted to sizing yarns permit warp weaving adhere well. opera- not However, as weight, differences in giv- these operation, tion and to facilitate such not, ing and construction would be- as a cohesiveness to weave the fibers in the herringbone yarns preventing desized twill of the tween the fabric from cap deteriorating type used and de- as a weaving result of weight gives process. stiff, of the It' weave denim sized almost wire involved, substantially like, fiber, result herein characteristic and is commonly characteristics. referred to as different starch. In bags made from the Government-furnish- manufacture the cloth the Cone sizing Company, much more difficult to denim also ed added after commercially Being of between has a total addi- an woven. material the tive, itself, materials. of nonfibrous fiber part of the 12% material. a nonfibrous as referred to it is (c) furnished The material materials, nonfibrous other are There produc- plaintiff for the Government to are pectins, waxes and as involved tion of the barrack process fiber growth of the approximately instant contract contained hand, are there other On itself. materials, of total nonfibrous added which are materials nonfibrous approximately which, the bulk of or manufacturing during the fiber to the sizing. percent, It was not consisted sizing example. process, of which water-repellent, mildew-resistant or dye detergents, oils, soaps, Others treated. designed to salts, additives bath supplied defendant 11. The denim finishing special characteristics impart performance plaintiff may instance, additives For to the cloth. yarn piece and not instant contract water, give mildew used to yam e., made with colored dyed, i. it was character- repellent resistant fire filling. warp and in both above, itself As forth istics. set herein was added Generally, production articles finishing process, part of the volved normal has the denim cloth which part of to that added in addition siz- materials and nonfibrous amount of weaving process. ma- All of these commonly com- type used “nonfi- in the term terials are included finding channels, in set forth as mercial However, ad- material.” since brous percent 10, 50 less from 30 to would sizing the fa- tends to stiffen dition of denim, production as- from desized than are bric, cloth and weave where identical suming type were same of machines greater involved, has the that which Assuming the on both materials. used sizing be the stiffer. amount of would boardy similar, denim is are sized weaves “sizing” (b) and “nonfi- whereas desized denim is softer The terms and stiff synonymous, making ar- and to handle. of brous material” easier encompasses requires of denim a dif- “nonfibrous material” out sized since ticles making “sizing.” Desizing process setup plant for re- is a than of ferent moving denim, is of desized for starch. The removal nor- articles which out machinery lighter mally of an is used. The use effected means acid of machinery in such starch into a soluble sized denim would converts the above, produce the difficulties described form which can then be washed out. usually up production, prep- slow is effected in would would re- Such removal higher bleaching dyeing. production sult in costs. aration early finishing process encompasses the containing approximately Sized denim weaving, processes after such as clean- percent materials, nonfibrous such ing fabric to from fiber remove plaintiff herein, as was furnished is ingredients so that certain will grade commonly commercial used in dyeing opera- absorptive for the more sewing Ap- and textile industries. tion, dyeing, pressing, applying addi- yards proximately square 250 million water-repellant finishes, such as tive denim are used 9.85-ounce in the United treatment. yearly, great majority and the States yardage On cotton material which not de- contains 9-12 this sized, materials, including denim, sizing. as the bulk of such the nonfibrous normally up nonfibrous material is made denims are for Commercial the most sizing. containing denims, shop part Cloth as much and a up as sized set total nonfibrous materials fabricate items material normally handling difficulty in not be desized. would General- not have would it. type commonly However, above, ly, shop of the denim as set forth sized used set softer, only heavy flexible due to up more texture of the to handle Gov- denim, sup- material, of which ernment Furnished Material such as desized use, you. plied very large also amount is cluding items, Government “Confirming telephone conversa- employing difficulty sized considerable tion, September 1953, you are ad- denim. you vised that furnished plain- 24,1953, weight (a) type specified September was of a 13. On contracting applicable officer the Bid tiff sent to Invitation following your which is contract. letter: production on Con- are in “We "The Government Bag, Barracks TAP 1903 for tract Bag, you Barrack furnished explain I some want to guide indicating gen- use as a encountered. we have difficulties eral of manufacture of this lines preparing our bid specifica- Your “When we were item. contract and govern loan had the item we tions above materials to be fur- Sample our nished of Government and the actual manufacture compiled computations us- Therefore, were this item. accord- bag agreement, telephonic a basis. ance with our your request compen- for additional receiving ship- “Upon initial our sation is considered withdrawn.” ma- furnished ment Government surprised to find that we were terials By November heavier tex- material was of a delinquent had become in its deliveries government sample. than ture and, date, on that wrote defendant costs of this our Because respect delinquency, to such as fol- cutting, where two lows: shipment of and the crossed seams “In order to eliminate the delin- bags, underestimated. quency on the above contract we closing machines for “Our complete shakeup a made bags of the two halfs [sic] production our schedule. We are so we had to sew material not breaking operators in new and have acquire tractor feeds. machines with incorporated op-. some of the laying materials furnished we In speeding up pro- erations thus through only 75 we could cut found change, duction. Since this we have bag ply whereas the daily production. almost doubled our Finally ply. be cut at 150 could having “However we are trouble weight per computing bale bartacking with the of the cord. freight costs underestimated we our operation causing This is us much weight by per 12 lbs. bale expense trouble and in needles. Be- “Considering the above difficulties operation cause of this one we are the circumstances which caused building backlog up up to requesting them, we are an addition- operation. the bartack Just as soon per unit .01 over the al find we can method some of elim- price. inating difficulty op- on this one “Your consideration in this mat- eration, we will be able to eliminate greatly appreciated.” will be ter delinquent items. By 5, (b) 1953, letter of October “Because of hard finish of the contracting replied officer as follows: government materials, furnished anticipated is “Reference made above-list- which was not when bur Septem- contract and submitted, letter of put ed bid was we had requesting using an ber additional on a second shift. We two per price present unit over the contract at the $.01 shifts time. being nature “Because “Everything possible is furnished materials delinquent deliv- Government to overcome done has result- of cost above breakdown eries.” ed.” letter, subsequent to time At some 1954, plaintiff January 20, prior to but requested (a) consid- In with its connection unit increase a $0.12 claim, plaintiff’s eration of defendant’s bag on account price submitted, 8, representatives March by alleged furnished defective 1954, samples five Government- date, de- By letter defendant. furnished material States to the United requested cost breakdown fendant laboratory Army Quartermaster Corps request and substantiate testing. By report March dated re- February 1954, plaintiff 17, letter of gave 16, laboratory results sponded, follows: showing “Sizing, Fin- test as its * * * letter, your reply ishing “In & Non-Fibrous Material” Other following January ranged percent, dated an from 7.8 8.4 TAP Contract average report percent. cost breakdown 8.0 shows Bag, Baracks 1961-E-53 “Requirements” 1903 OI applicable “13.0 the Max.”, indicating rep- submitted: that defendant’s paragraph E-2 considered resentatives Sewing Reinforcements..........053 of Federal CCC-D-186 Sewing to sides.........035 Bottoms (finding 2(c)) applicable. to be Joining Sides...................026 (b) plain- Further review of Bartacking rope openings......052 & claim, representatives tiff’s defendant’s Hemming tops..................056 plaintiff’s books and an audit of Cutting........................04 caused Army Audit records to be made Trim, Inspect Fold & Tie.........015 Agency. However, June letter of Bailing labor...................009 10, 1954, advised that: defendant bag.....286 per cost Total Labor “ * * * attempt to review per .146 .. Material Cost Total Agen- Army your Audit claim Total ....................432 cy in a determination that resulted Average per unit Price Contract submitted the total cost breakdown freight...................33 your inadequate less claim accounting subject to an review. bag...............102 Gross loss preceding para- “In view requested .12 Adjustment in claim ... you requested graph, fur- & for overhead Available following data, duplicate. nish Profit ...................018 cost, A detailed breakdown “a. indicating actual re- incurred on costs are normal costs above “The sulting subject item, use of Government from the wherein nondefective are not used. materials Furnished sewing because of the suitable A detailed cost breakdown of “b. sizing. after materials texture claimed as a result costs increased long company ais establish- “This alleged defective material fur- having articles manufactured firmed by the Government. nished using clothing equipment all Any you other data which “c. bid on this types We of textiles. necessary support your deem 9.85 expecting oz to receive item claim. suitable denim receipt information, “Upon of this sewing. a ma- receive Instead we expedite endeavor to will this Office be considered as which could terial your claim.” canvas. satisfactorily- following The is a detailed break- contract was 16. By determining bid completed June of cost in about down resulting defendant, plaintiff and the actual cost letter of that date request responded continued use of defective Govern- to defendant’s of June Furnished Material. tained in letter ment 15(b)), (finding as follows: Us-

Actual Cost ing Gov- Defective Furnished, ernment Determining Detailed Cost Bid Material Sewing Reinforcements.........0282 .053 Sewing Bottoms ..............015 .035 Joining Halves................015 .026 Bartacking ...................020 .052 Hemming.....................015 .056 Cutting ......................0148 .04 Trim, Inspect Fold Tie.........015 .015 Bailing Labor.................009 .009 Bag

Total Labor Cost Per .. .1320 .286 Total Material Cost Bag................148

Per .146 Total Production Cost..........2800 .432 Overhead .....................03 .030 Profit ........................02 .020 .33 .482 Freight ......................02608 .02608

.35608 .50808 Net Loss Per Unit.................152

Net Loss in $32,923.20 Dollars............... using costs were “The increased above were sewing. material suitable for the Defec- cutting incurred as result of operation materi- affected, tive Furnished Government also because our knife material does not meet the only al. This through ply cut and ply. regard finish anticipated using we had specifications of the material. “Because of the nature of the denim, 9.85 for a cotton call finish of the Government Furnished sizing, a which would leave oz. with Contract, Material on this feel we sewing quali- with suitable a fabric just that we a claim. Furnished The Government ties. qualities. not “We did have these manufactured the material Barracks Bag by furnishing barracks structure materials meet- ing sewing, specifications cutting that in needle and when through pass Material, from four to the Government to Furnished had Using of material. used methods which would thicknesses ten enable bag according type material us to furnished manufacture the the Government, sewing specification yet op- made these to result a savings much slower than if of Government we Furnished erations completed the shall than fabric contain more Material. We have sizing.’ yards 20,000 iy2% under Contract about the allowance. laboratory reports on “We have testing therefore, you samples will hope, submitted that three “We give had with that the GFM shows [sic] our claim careful consideration. sizing. to you 10.07% 9.95% “Any information additional upon re- furnished may need, be will “Because of this excess n quest.” GFM, loss of .1497 we suffered a 6, TAP 1903 unit on Contract prior October to 17. Sometime adjust- samples for an therefore filed claim 1954, three plaintiff submitted ment. Government-furnished laboratory (The testing private courtesy you “We thank Inc.). Company, Testing United States representatives at the extended our date, labora- By Report under that you review and ask that conference test, con- tory that advised this claim.” Speci- Federal in accordance ducted May By 4, 1955, 19. labeled letter of CCC-T-191b, that showed fication Findings Fact”, con- “Decision and wax, oil, “sizing, etc.” samples contained claim, tracting denied officer percent. ranging 10.07 from 9.38 to stating pertinent as follows: having made on been your April No decision “I have letter of 1955, 16, prior April plaintiff’s claim regard your for ad- 1955 in claim * * prior to sometime was held a conference compensation ditional *. n representatives between that date plaintiff alleged “Your claim is based By follow- defendant. defects Property Government-Furnished- 16, 1955, plaintiff April dated letter under sub- delivered to review its claim: requested defendant carefully ject After contract. reviewing specifi- all of undersigned your “After sidering claim, the covering manufacture following findings cations hereby makes the 1903, Bag, TAP Barracks under of fact: convinced more than ever we are May On or about “1. your filed with office our claim that 30-352-TAP-1903, DA OI- Contract justified. your firm 1961-E-53 was awarded MIL-B-2378A, “Specification cov- Bag, Barrack, 216,600 each OD. OD, ering Bag, states Barrack provided contract “2. Said that Paragraph that the denim to 3.2.1.1 Bags the Barracks would conform yarn dyed piece, or stock be vat Military Specification MIL-B- dyeing approved shade to match the 2378A and Government conforming drab No. olive Cloth, Cotton, furnish the I, Type B of Class OD-7, Denim, ozs., Unshrunk, 9.85 The denim shall JAND-504. producing use the same. 28" for singed, in such a and finished desized Paragraph Military 3.2.1 “3. produce a fabric with manner as provides Specification MIL-B-2378A satisfactory quality. for the Bar- the basic material “Referring Specification JAN- Bag subject covered racks D-504; Type B denim calls I Class Denim, shall Un- repellent dyeing, water for Vat conforming II, shrunk, Type Class treatment. after mildew resistant Specification Federal CCC-D- C of (1) Paragraph of this same E-la 186. follows: states containing CCC- “4. Federal ‘Preparation: siz- Fabric Type II provides Denim that dyed Type process D-186 I to be may contain state dyed finished in its so that the desized shall be Army finishing, exhibits, a Contract sizing, three-member maximum of 13% Appeals unanimous- Panel of said Board materials. non-fibrous or other August ly held, in on a decision rendered By November letter of 10 “5. 14, 1956, plaintiff entitled that was your for addi- filed a claim firm adjustment. facts, equitable On the al- compensation on the based tional Board found that en- the had legation the Government-Fur- that unanticipated countered difficulties and nished-Property under the delivered hard, increased reason of the costs subject possessed a hard stating, furnished, per- stiff material not was thus finish and textured part: tinent producing the use in suitable for “The was examined to de- Bags. Barracks termine the nature the material sizing “6. The in the Govern- and the manner the which ment-Furnished-Property delivered pattern was constructed. A was your firm did not exceed 10.07% made accordance it and the appli- and thus conformed with specifications. The latter were read regard. specifications in this cable providing cloth with maxi- “7. The Government-Furnished- sizing. y2 mum of 1 The tex- your Property firm was delivered to ture of cloth from which the sam- producing Bar- suitable for use in ple appeared made was to be in con- Bags subject racks covered formity interpretation. with that contract. Thereupon appellant selected some payment “8. of additional herringbone twill left cloth over your compensation firm is previous contract, from a which was Article authorized under made with a different weave from Government-Furnished-Property approximately denim but which had provisions 2 of the and Article Gen- sewing qualities. the same From subject eral Provisions forelady shop made tract. production several while the foregoing findings, manager operation. “In timed each view Unit undersigned prepared of the labor costs were is the decision it resulting figures your the same claim be and basis of the and the that ” * ** daily hereby pay operators denied. who would do the work. May 1955, plain- By letter acting 12 of the tiff, pursuant Article “When the Government-furnished appealed 2(a)), (finding plant material was received in the it Schedule contracting Arm- found officer’sdecision was to contain much more Appeals. anticipated. Board of Contract than had been ed Services Appellant’s samples appeal, tests on stated indicat- In its contracting percent, “in er- was 9.38 officer’sdecision ed 10.07 Government furnished while percent Government’s because indicated-7.8 ror percent. not conform to to 8.4 property delivered effect did. in in- Specifications and resulted that the material hard was amounting stiff, to a cost made it unit difficult to costs fabri- creased bag.” However, per cate awkward handle. It of $0.1497 subsequently impossible many pieces “Complaint” filed cut as 28, 1955, plaintiff one time as had claimed been at estimated November preparing costs bid because “incurred additional labor had cutting amounting $36,742.94” overhead, machine would not hold $0,169 The texture to an increase of them. amounted (which presented grew unit). After both sides blades hot or it was testimony when cut. submitted broke witnesses op- express- to of the

machines were unable treatment cloth likewise ly only efficiently provided the needles for. Not was the erate because burned out or deletion of the four words insuffi- broke. nullify it, provi- cient to other but conditions, “As a of these result affirmatively sions of the contract production down, it be- was slowed Page so 8 of the indicate. schedule necessary came rent additional warning sets forth a to the contract- equipment personnel, hire extra or that treated, be so the material would repair costs maintenance instructions with greatly final The were increased. premises. Exceptions paragraphs performance substan- costs of were 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.3 MIL-B-2378A of upon tially in of the estimates excess provide specification different refer- Ap- computed. which the bid was express purpose ences for the of pellant the entire ex- that contends treating rope so the thread and quality due cess was bag. pro- be used These material, al- Government-furnished though along visions, with the undeleted some evidence there is provisions paragraph 3.2.1.1, contrary.” record speci- dicate the clear intent of that ques- concluding that “The sole After require fication to that the be Govern- whether the case is tion in the treated accordance with JAN-D- too material contained ment-furnished fol- sizing,” Board stated much requirement yarn “The that the lows: filling warp both be is colored that contends “The Government negation express not a terms is of the denim content principal of the contract and the only controlled specification. The conclusion that up any amount and that CCC-D-186 yarn dyed must be before weav- accordance with is in to 13 upon rather than after is based argued Spe- is that It contract. upon rather inference than the terms only concerns JAN-D-504 cification aftertreatment, pro- in which the the deletion vision is found. Such inference ‘water-repellent mil- words negative used cannot be the ex- para- from treated’ dew-resistant graph press provisions of the contract elim- MIL-2378A 3.2.1.1 specifications which dis- we have aftertreatment, and that inates cussed. is JAN-D-504 reference entire thereby “We therefore concludethat JAN- argument is This nullified. applicable, including para- D-504 n supported the further contention graph E-la(l), requiring not more E-lb of CCC-D- y2 paragraph sizing. than 1 yarn contemplates that will dyed the cloth is woven before be so, para- if this “Even according- can JAN-D-504 and that ly graph 3.2.1.1 MIL-B-2378A re- application. no have quires ‘singed, that the denim be de- agree sized, inter- in such and finished cannot manner “We produce deletion of four a fabric pretation. satis- factory paragraph qualities.’ only 3.2.1.1cannot words any judgment given interpreted manner of standard appellant n construction qualities deletion of the which those as a might judged specifica- paragraph the referenc- whole purpose which we specification. tions have discussed and

ed n deletion clear, may sample but the basis of is not merely prepared. While been to eliminate a the bid well redundancy. made allowance for It is certain that after- varia-

653 specifica- Furnished sample fective GFP [Government of tion this necessary nothing Property], in be to know tions, in it will was there ap- by types number the models of ma- specifications to indicate the supplied chines used be that were under pellant cloth to the that By 21, 1956, substantially different tract.” plaintiff of letter December a be of would sample. in refused to furnish such informa- quality the than that basis, ground a the not “on it is rele- prepared on such that bid was specifica- equitable vant to the comparison the of an with determination after adjustment.” delivery of subsequent tions. it was sub- finished that cloth so stantially (b) Lacking any information other than to sew difficult more plaintiff’s than total costs and the break- compliance full not in the original plaintiff’s bid, down of the con- paragraph 3.2.I.I.” with tracting Quarter- requested officer the foregoing, the Board the Based on Manufacturing Corps’ master Division the Government-furnished “that found supply him with such technical infor- fully with accordance mation as enable would him to make an appellant is specifications and that the equitable adjustment based on in- the adjustment equitable to an entitled by creased costs caused ma- the defective resulting increased of the the amount terial. That Division ran tests mak- However, the performance.” of cost ing out of the material since the concluded that further Board actually supplied of defendant and per- only y2 cost the total of “shows claim exceeding percent material not 1 siz- segregation formance, no with ing. making tests, In such machines difficulty in work- due costs creased were used which the Division felt were due to other those with the comparable similar or to those which contracting factors”, offi- “the and since plaintiff used, although, had because of proof of these costs did not cer plaintiff’s refusal to furnish infor- his de- time he made him at the before mation, the Division was not certain that be would referred termination”, the case the machines used were in fact com- contracting officer “to de- back parable. equitable ad- of the the amount termine justment comparative tests, Based on these Pro- with General accordance that, concluded as between the Division 2(a))', (finding contract” of the vision assuming materials, two use right fur- plaintiff “the to have machines, plaintiff of same kind ag- appeal that it is in the event ther only be encountered in difficulties would grieved by that determination.” sewing operations, e., i. three plaintiff’s reference Board’s bottoms, joining consisting only of its “total cost claim hemming. halves, and the It was con- upon plain- based performance” was that there would cluded testimony that incurred tiff’s production decrease those three $32,410.94. the contract on loss operations. (a) Upon the return the case cutting Similarly, operation, contracting officer for deter- concluded that there the Division adjustment, equitable mination approximately 25a differential sought alleged to have its total materials. between previously $32,410.94, present- loss (finding 20) (finding 4) allowed as Plaintiff’s bid breakdown Board toed adjustment. How- labor showed cost esti- amount contracting basis, officer, mate, letter of ever, cents 1% plaintiff, of the above-mentioned stated for each three December 4y2 sewing operations, cents an accurate technical evalua- as “before operations. for the three “to determine estimate be made an total could tion” Increasing respect adjustment per- equitable de- cost 4%-cent pursuant Provision 2 of give to there- General increased cost cent would an ‘Changes’,the the entitled: contract for of 1.8 cents. equitable to contractor is entitled Similarly, plaintiff’s breakdown bid adjustment price in the contract cutting 1.48 of estimated cost showed an therefore. Increasing by bag. per cents percent adjustment give equitable for “5. An cost an increased Bag, change per Bar- is $.0217 of 0.37 cent. therefor Bags 216,610 rack, OD, applicable to Thus, recommended the Division for delivered under the contract contracting equitable officer that the the price total of increase in contract adjustment 1.8 of be the total should $4,700.44, adjustment shall which sewing operations, three cents on the subject not be discount for the cutting operation, plue cent on the 0.37 prompt specified payment in the con- bag. per or of cents a total 2.17 tract.” presented to as claim Since ap- January 18, 1957, plaintiff 22. On contracting on was not made officer the pealed Board the Armed Services any any basis, did and not include Appeals Contract from the decision profit, was but claim for overhead contracting officer as to the amount losses, recoup simply its overall a claim adjustment, equitable and no recommendation made Division 27, 1957, complaint March filed its there- any specific amounts for addition of sought in in which it amount profit. overhead $36,742.94 per- as its “increase cost of contracting accepted (e) The officer resulting formance from the Government the Manufactur- the recommendation of ing Division, furnishing material not accordance January 14, and on * * with the After “Findings of and Deci- issued his sion”, Fact hearing Army Ap- a peals before the Contract pertinent part as which stated Board, Panel of at which the follows: testimony of witnesses exhibits were No. Contract DA-30-352- “1. sides, on behalf of both submitted (OI-1961-E-53) TAP-1903 by after the submission of briefs you May on 26 1953 for awarded to parties, in which reduced furnishing delivering 216,600 $34,566.70, claim to Panel of three O.D., Bags, Barrack, total ea. unanimously members decided on Decem- $77,127.30. price of contract 30, 1957, ber equitable adjustment amount provides “2. contract $12,- should be Military Bags these shall conform to $4,700.44 996.60 instead of the amount of MIL-B-2378A, dated contracting allowed officer. January excep- with certain pertinent part: Board Panel stated contract; in the tion stated “Appellant has submitted a con- Cloth, shall be fabricated ton, Denim, Cot- siderable mass of oral and documen- oz., OD-7, 9.85 Un- tary evidence, much of which was (hereinafter referred shrunk “Denim”) to as hearing previous included in the containing than more establishing at directed total sizing, iy2% of to be furnished preformance costs the amount the Government. by which such costs exceeded its “3. The Denim furnished already held bid. We have in our _ under the Government previous decision that that is not the substantially tained more than proper 1%% measure amount due sizing. of the deviation. account change appellant prove “4. This fur- burden is on by the nished Government additional cost incurred caused because of nonspecification an increase contractor’s cost Government- contract; performance appears There furnished fabric. 1.05 -unit cost would add cents to the nothing appellant’s records such overhead. impact of the devia- that shows performance. upon the cost also showed bid breakdown Plaintiff’s However, adduced evidence 4). (finding, As profit 2 cents extent to the substantial specific found, approxi- the Board this came down operations slowed mately percent (6.38%) 6.5 total nonspecification hard, stiff (13.20), (14.80) of labor and materials in as not material. evidence is This amounting (30), overhead to 31 cents satisfactory would as form we a applica- bid on such items. The Board’s evaluating con- However, it in like. junction percentage tion of this to the same 6.5 of full consideration with a (13.20 new of base 17.82 cents for labor of appeals, arewe the records in both increase), bid 4.62 14.8 cents + opinion of $.06 that an increase the materials, and 4.05 overhead cents full a price will constitute unit totaling increase), (30 bid 1.05 36.67 +' adjustment. adequate equitable and cents, profit, would 2.38 cents for add approxi- amounts' so This We find. by plaintiff, instead of 2 cents or an bid mately direct increase in a 35% bag. per of 0.38 increase cent together costs, overhead with labor Accordingly, 6.5%, of 4.62 the labor increase profit re- and and of 22.8% cents, cents, the overhead increase of 1.05 appellant’s spectively, in included profit the 0.38 and increase of would cent bid estimate. price in a of result total unit increase price ac- will “The total contract bag. per cents 6.05 This was the basis cordingly by total bags be increased upon which Board found the that an (number 216,610 x of of $.06 price crease of 6 in unit cents the $12,996.60, of delivered), instead or adjust- adequate equitable an stituted by amount allowed the Contract- the ment. ing Officer.” (a) $12,996.60 23. The amount of testimony hearing, there was At the by the found Board to the constitute given by expert offered witness adjustment paid by equitable has been de- using type hard plaintiff of that in (cid:127) plaintiff. fendant to herein Government-furnished compared with desized den- involved as im, (b) Plaintiff contends that the Board’s would, on the there reinforcement arbitrary, capricious, not decision supported and sewing drop operation, production abe in substantial evidence percent; approximately sew- 30 on the of the sum allowed is insufficient not joining halves of the bottoms truly representative of its reasonable and drop 40 to operation, would be from necessary expended costs incurred bartacking oper- percent; and on the 50 furnishing of defendant’s non- a result ' ation, drop approximately specification material. In all re- other basis, percent. Board’s On spects, it relies on the Bdárd’s decisions. percent application of a 35 increase $28,- incurred total loss Plaintiff plaintiff’s to all of labor costs It 943.87 on contract. claims that justified operations ar- and was not loss due to entire defendant’s bitrary capricious. Since having furnished sized denim instead of bag per labor cost was $0.1320 estimated denim and that the Board desized should 4), percent (finding add thereof would $28,- full allowed said sum of unit cost. to the 4.62 cents profit 943.87, plus 6.45 thereon percentage bid, (the profit included in its breakdown bid showed Plaintiff’s applied percentage Board overhead. As cents allow), $1,866.88, found, approximately sum did this came to making Board $30,810.75. Crediting (22.72%) a total of labor costs. 22.8 $12,996.60 application per- amount which the Board’s this same allowed, $17,- a balance of leaves -4.62-cent Board centage. labor increase percentage applied 814.15 for claim rate makes making adjust- equitable in this suit. Board its On overhead ment. the basis actual (c) deci- Defendant contends that the experience, plaintiff rate underestimated finding ma- sions the Board respect to underbid therefore comply terial furnished did its overhead. allowing $12,996.60 specifications plus $17,891.99, direct labor loss arbitrary capricious and were $11,051.88 resulted the overhead loss It not based on evidence. has substantial $28,943.87, forth in a total as set loss seeking judgment in filed counterclaim finding 23(b). plus amount, said interest. (a) total Plaintiff attributes its finding 23(b), 24. As forth in set operations fur- on its loss recoup in this suit seeks to nishing denim. sized instead of desized operations. In total loss on its contract nothing specificallythat There is to show contract, plain- performance of relating any other to contract factor $46,- labor of tiff incurred direct costs operations contributed to the loss. There 216,610 Applied to the 481.63. absenteeism, problems in- of labor bags delivered, unit cost was $0.2146. may turnover, experience, and and these 4), plaintiff’s (finding bid esti- As shown higher contributing have been factors mate unit direct labor costs costs, definitely shown labor but it is not therefore, was, difference $0.1320. any respect un- that such factors were per unit, $17,891.99 on the $0.0826 or, they to the usual if did contribute following 216,610 delivered. The higher costs, by shown much. As how how cost each shows actual of by finding 24, actual costs were labor operation compared with the estimates per over 8 ed, unit estimat- cents more than thereof: although in- Board allowed an only approximately of 4.6 crease cents Percentagewise, al- Board unit. labor, percent lowed a 35 increase actually plaintiff a total while incurred percent. increase of Neverthe- over less, insofar as increased labor costs due working to the one of with sized factor concerned, rather than desized denim is the record before the Board as well as (findings 22) sup- before this court finding ports the of the Board that a 35 percent increase labor costs would fairly This find- be attributable thereto. arbitrary of the Board is not by capricious supported and is substan- evidence. The additional tial increases plaintiff labor costs which incurred Plaintiff’s overhead costs con- have been due other of the in- must $28,720.40. amounted Overhead tract entering factors into numerable applied percentage properly as a operations, least or at has not Thus, the labor. overhead rate so direct weight of the credible shown evi- percent, generally applied is 61.77 percent of that 100 its dence increased operations Ap- of this kind. conforms solely costs due labor one fac- percentage plying such the direct labor question. tor $17,891.99results in an overhead loss by finding $11,051.88. (finding (b) 4), As As shown shown loss adding applied results plaintiff’s percent bid rate increase overhead 4.62 percent labor, Therefore, to the unit cost. on 22.8 estimated which cents 216,610 bags, percent sizing, paragraph labor cost increased as set forth m $10,007.38. E-la(l) Military Specification allowed the Board was JAN- (finding percent 2(d)). this 22.8 D-504 Board allowed Defendant deriving overhead, provision, amount tends as increased which the figure percentage applicable (finding 20) Board held to be finding 24, plaintiff’s was, light bid. As shown when read in the of the other was, on record provisions, bid this item based contract and light court, applicable, now proper interpreta- before the too low and that a and, experience, specifications its actual actual where of such contract and involved, permits furnishing cost considerations of cloth which percent finishing allow- error the Board to make this would contain 13 “of (nonfibrous) materials”, Plaintiff’s ance a bid estimated basis. as set forth in paragraph actual overhead costs were 61.77 E-2 of Federal costs, (finding rea- 2(c)), direct labor which is CCC-D-186 with which percent- provision application sonable. The of this the cloth furnished herein did age $10,007.38 comply (finding 9). labor increased in fact Defendant give question costs allowed the Board would further that, contends as a $6,181.56 fact, over- increased the Board’s decision effect expenses. head the cloth did contain furnished more than was arbi- 1% (c) in increase the overhead trary, capricious, by supported and not figure in the an increase would also cause substantial evidence. Defendant con- by profit Board. total allowance made erroneously equated tends that Board profit Here, application ratio of the sizing, nonfibrous materials with that plaintiff percent to costs 6.45 which sizing only component is one of the total bid, the Board calculated in its and which materials, proof nonfibrous and that used, proper. would reasonable is not sufficient to show that there was Applying this Plaintiff claims no more. sizing more than IV2 in the total labor ratio to the total the increased nonfibrous materials contained $10,007.38 and the increased costs by plaintiff. cloth furnished defendant making $6,181.56, overhead costs of respect contention, With to this factual gives $16,188.94, profit increase of total the Board’s decision that the cloth con- figure $1,044.19. is, tained more than 1% view of the evidence (d) above, before as well as forth On the bases set change additional evidence introduced plaintiff by before order allowed court, arbitrary capricious, $17,233.13, should been Board supported evidence, $12,996.60 substantial the amount which stead (finding 10(c)). and was fact correct allow, $4,- a difference the Board did Similarly, the other ultimate factual find- 236.53. ings of Board contained its deci- finding 23(c), de- 26. As set forth August 14, including sion of those herein, fendant, its counterclaim filed relating to the effect that the sized denim $12,- to recover the amount of seeks plaintiff’s operations, sup- had on are also allowed Board which 996.60 ported such substantial evidence and paid plaintiff.16 which has been (findings 6, 7, 8). are likewise correct grounds posi- defendant’s One that, law, a matter of Board is Conclusion of Law construing error committed foregoing findings specifications Upon fact, and various so as tract furnishing judgment require made a of desized which denim herein, the court contain not more than concludes a matter 1% brought agrees that, Although corporation itself is in the suit 16. Lilley-Ames Company defendant is successful on its coun- of “The Divi- event name terclaim, Kay, Inc.”, Kay, it will be Bill the Bill liable thereon. Inc. sion recover, is entitled law adjudged ordered and it is therefore of and from recover of four thousand

United the sum States fifty- thirty-six dollars two hundred ($4,236.53). further It

three cents entitled is not defendant

concluded that is dis- counterclaim

to recover

missed. and Minnie WHITEFOOT

Ambrose

Whitefoot

v. STATES.

UNITED

No. 497-57. Court of Claims.

United States

July 19, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Oct. Paul, Seattle, Wash., Frederick C. Mathis, Grorud, Ray-

Robert Albert A. Washington, C., Cushwa, C. D. mond Sr., Paul, Seattle, Wash., William L. briefs, plaintiffs. Thos. L. McKevitt with whom was Perry Atty. Gen., Morton, Asst. W. defendant. sitting (Retired),

REED, Justice designation. compensation This a suit recover through taking by destruction rights fishing undation certain rights as the other claimed individual plaintiffs

property in the Columbia River near Celilo Falls States Oregon Washington the construc- the United of The States Dalles Dam, completed in 1956. plaintiffs are Indians enrolled Nation, a confederation Yakima cre- granted a reservation ated and Treaty United States between the and the Nation, 9, 1855, 12 June Yakima Stat. By treaty various tribes

Case Details

Case Name: Lilley-Ames Company, Inc. v. United States

Court Name: United States Court of Claims

Date Published: Jul 19, 1961

Citation: 293 F.2d 630

Docket Number: 214-58

Court Abbreviation: Ct. Cl.