Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 45

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case No. 06-232C (Filed: December 19, 2007)

******************************

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
******************************

* * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER By this Order, the Court confirms issues that were decided during oral argument on December 19, 2007. The parties are hereby ordered to provide additional briefing discussing the following issues:

·

The relationship between termination of a contract for the convenience of the Government and a suit for breach of contract. The parties should discuss whether a breach of contract action may be brought where a contract has been terminated for convenience and, if so, how the scope of damages available to the contractor under a breach of contract theory is different from damages that are available in a termination for convenience scenario. Whether the specifications at issue in this case constitute "government-furnished property" as defined in FAR 52.245-1(a) and discussed in FAR 52.245-2, "Government Property (FixedPrice Contracts)," which was incorporated into the contract. 48 C.F.R. §§ 52.245-1(a), 52.245-2 (Apr. 1984).

·

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 45

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 2 of 2

·

Clarification of the authority of the Terminating Contracting Officer ("TCO") to consider and render a final decision upon a contractor's request for equitable adjustment and to whom such a request must be presented if the TCO in fact lacks authority to consider it. Where in the contract documents the parties find support for their competing arguments that the contract was a design versus performance contract.

·

The parties have agreed upon the following briefing schedule to discuss the aforementioned issues: · · · Friday, January 31, 2008: Friday, February 29, 2008: Friday, March 14, 2008: Plaintiff's Brief Defendant's Response Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Lawrence M. Baskir LAWRENCE M. BASKIR Judge

Page 2