Termination for Default
TAKOTA CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, COFC No. 06-553C, October 28, 2009.
Navy contract for boat ramps and dredging. The Navy terminated the contract for default for “failure to make progress to ensure completion of the contract and to perform the contract within the specified time.”
Plaintiff requests the termination be converted to one for convenience and the government moves to dismiss. Judge Bruggink notes of the four relevant factors in reviewing a decision to terminate for default –
“(1) evidence of subjective bad faith on the part of the government official, (2) whether there is a reasonable, contract-related basis for the official’s decision, (3) the amount of discretion given to the official, and (4) whether the official violated an applicable statute or regulation.” (citations omitted) only one is in play here, (2) was there a reasonable basis for the TFD? Judge Bruggink notes that many of the parties arguments are fact based and not conducive by motions for summary judgment. Judge Bruggink notes that “termination based on breach is a valid ground for termination even though the Navy did not rely on this justification when it issued the default termination.” Judge Bruggink grants summary judgment for the government finding that the contract required Takota to shore the seawalls and to submit a sheeting and shoring plan and there is no dispute that Takota did not shore or brace the seawalls and that Takota did not submit a sheeting and shoring plan and instead repeatedly insisted that this submittal was not required.
Tags: Contracting, DCAA, Terminations
This entry was posted on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 7:40 am.
