Free Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS GRUNLEY-WALSH, LLC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff, v.

No. 07-190C (Judge Lettow)

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER For its answer to the complaint of plaintiff, Grunley-Walsh, LLC ("Grunley-Walsh"), defendant, the United States, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 constitute conclusions of law, and

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 2. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 3. 4. Admits. Denies the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 4 that on May 6,

1998, the Department of the Interior, National Park Service awarded Grunley-Walsh Contract No. 1443CX305998901. Avers that on May 13, 1998, the Department of the Interior, National Park Service awarded Grunley-Walsh Contract No. 1443CX305998901. Admits the remaining allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 4 to the extent supported by Contract No. 1443CX305998901, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the remaining allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 4. The second sentence of paragraph 4

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 8

contains plaintiff's characterization of its complaint, to which no response is required. Admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 4. 5. Denies the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 5 that Contract

Modification No. 7 was dated November 15, 2001. Avers that Contract Modification No. 7 was dated November 21, 2001, and was effective November 15, 2001. Admits the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5 to the extent supported by Modification No. 7, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5. 6. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 to the extent supported by Task

Order No. 35, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6. 7. The allegations contained in paragraph 7 constitute plaintiff's characterization of

its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 8. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 to the extent supported by the

March 16, 2007 letter cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8. 9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 constitute conclusions of law, to which

no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 10. Admits the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of paragraph 10

to the extent supported by the November 2003 contract drawings cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the first and second -2-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 8

sentences of paragraph 10. Admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 10 to the extent supported by the March 19, 2004 drawings cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 10. Avers that the March 19, 2004 drawings cited were not issued or created by the National Park Service, and were not a contract deliverable by Grunley-Walsh. 11. Denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 11. Admits the

allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 11 to the extent supported by the "contract drawings" cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 11. Avers that it is not clear which "contract drawings" plaintiff is referencing. Denies that the illustration below paragraph 11 is an excerpt from any drawing issued or created by the National Park Service. 12. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 12 to the extent

supported by the "civil engineering drawings" cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 12. Avers that the "civil engineering drawings" cited were not issued or created by the National Park Service, and were not a contract deliverable by Grunley-Walsh. Admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 12 to the extent supported by the drawing cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 12. Denies that the illustration below paragraph 12 is an excerpt from any drawing issued or created by the National Park Service, or accurately depicts conditions or work performed on the project. 13. Admits the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 13. Avers that -3-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 4 of 8

the National Park Service did not determine that additional drainage was needed in the Southeast area of the project. Admits the allegation contained in the second sentence of paragraph 13 that Wiles Mensch issued the design sketch cited on May 18, 2004 to the extent supported by the document cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegation contained in the second sentence of paragraph 13 that Wiles Mensch issued the design sketch cited on May 18, 2004. Avers that Wiles Mensch did not issue the design sketch cited to the National Park Service. Denies the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 13. 14. Denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 14. Admits the

allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 14 to the extent supported by the March 19, 2004 civil drawings cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 14. Avers that the March 19, 2004 civil drawings were not issued or created by the National Park Service, and were not a contract deliverable by Grunley-Walsh. Denies that the drawing excerpts below paragraph 14 are excerpts from any drawings issued or created by the National Park Service. 15. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 15 to the extent

supported by the July 24, 2004 document cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 15. Admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 15 to the extent supported by the July 26, 2004 document cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 15. Denies that the drawing excerpt below paragraph 15 is an excerpt from any drawing issued or created by the National Park Service. -4-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 5 of 8

16.

The allegations contained in paragraph 16 constitute conclusions of law, and

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 17. Admits the allegation contained in paragraph 17 that Grunley-Walsh requested a

contracting officer's final decision on January 15, 2007, to the extent supported by the letter at Exhibit D to plaintiff's complaint, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise, denies the allegation contained in paragraph 17 that Grunley-Walsh requested a contracting officer's final decision on January 15, 2007. The remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 constitute conclusions of law, and plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 18. The allegations contained in paragraph 18 constitute conclusions of law, and

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 19. Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 through 18 of the complaint are

incorporated by reference. 20. The allegations contained in paragraph 20 constitute conclusions of law, and

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 21. The allegations contained in paragraph 21 constitute conclusions of law, and

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 20 [second]. The allegations contained in paragraph 20 [second] constitute conclusions -5-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 6 of 8

of law, and plaintiff's characterization of its case, to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 22. Denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief set forth in the prayer for relief

immediately following paragraph 20 [second], or to any relief whatsoever. 23. Denies each and every allegation not previously admitted or otherwise qualified. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 24. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of payment insofar as plaintiff has

received payment and has been fully compensated according to the terms and conditions of the contract. 25. Plaintiff's claims are totally or partially barred by accord and satisfaction.

WHEREFORE, defendant requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor, order that the complaint be dismissed, and grant defendant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Donald E. Kinner DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 7 of 8

OF COUNSEL: Alton Woods Assistant Solicitor Emily Parkhurst Attorney Advisor Department of the Interior General Law Division 1849 C Street NW Room 7322 Washington, DC 20240

s/ Tara Kilfoyle TARA KILFOYLE Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division 1100 L St., N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-1709 Fax: (202) 307-0972

May 21, 2007

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00190-CFL

Document 6

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21stth day of May 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S ANSWER" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. The parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ Tara Kilfoyle