Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS YATES INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. COFC No. 06-157C (06-833C) (Judge Allegra)

Plaintiff, v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. __________________________________________

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS

Yates International, L.L.C. ("Yates"), by counsel, for its Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim filed by defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, United States of America ("United States" or "Government") in matter number 06-833C, which has been consolidated by Order of the Court with matter 06-157C, states as follows: 1. The allegation contained in paragraph 152 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 2. 3. 4. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 153 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 154 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 155 constitutes a question of law, to which

no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 5. The allegation contained in paragraph 156 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 6. The allegation contained in paragraph 157 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 1

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 2 of 8

7. 8. 9.

Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 158 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 159 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 160 constitutes a question of law, to which

no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 10. 11. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 161 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 162 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 12. 13. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 163 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 164 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 14. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 165 to the extent that it is supported by

the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 165. 15. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 166 to the extent that it is supported by

the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 166. 16. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 167 to the extent that it is supported by

the document cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 167. 17. 18. Yates denies the allegation in paragraph 168 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 169 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 3 of 8

19.

Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 170 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 20. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 171 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 21. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 172 to the extent that it is supported by

the document cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 172. 22. The allegation contained in paragraph 173 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 23. The allegation contained in paragraph 174 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 24. The allegation contained in paragraph 175 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 25. The allegation contained in paragraph 176 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 26. The allegation contained in paragraph 177 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 27. The allegation contained in paragraph 178 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 28. The allegation contained in paragraph 179 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied.

3

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 4 of 8

29.

The allegation contained in paragraph 180 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 30. The allegation contained in paragraph 181 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 31. The allegation contained in paragraph 182 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 32. The allegation contained in paragraph 183 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 33. The allegation contained in paragraph 184 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 34. The allegation contained in paragraph 185 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 35. The allegation contained in paragraph 186 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 36. Yates denies the allegation in paragraph 187 of the Counterclaim and demands

strict proof thereof. 37. The allegation contained in paragraph 188 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 38. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 189 to the extent that it is supported by

the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 189.

4

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 5 of 8

39.

The allegation contained in paragraph 190 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 40. The allegation in the first sentence of paragraph 191 that Yates abandoned the

property is a conclusion of law, to which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. Yates denies the allegation in the second sentence and demands strict proof thereof. 41. The allegation contained in paragraph 192 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 42. The allegation contained in paragraph 193 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 43. The allegation contained in paragraph 194 constitutes a conclusion of law, to

which no response is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. 44. are denied. Affirmative Defenses 1. The Government's claims are barred by the Government's breach of the contracts All allegations contained in the Counterclaim not specifically admitted or denied

between the parties. 2. The Government's termination of the contracts for default was arbitrary and

capricious and an abuse of the Contracting Officer's ("CO's") discretion, and does not give rise to the Government's exercise of its right to assess Yates International for its excess reprocurement costs.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 6 of 8

3.

The CO's final decision to assess excess reprocurement costs against Yates was

not the product of the CO's independent judgment. 4. The CO's final decision to assess excess reprocurement costs against Yates is not

supported by the CO's stated grounds for terminating the contracts for default. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Government claims are not for excess costs. The reprocured services are not similar to those terminated. The costs of the reprocured services are unreasonable. The Government failed to mitigate its damages. The Government's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. The CO's final determination that Yates International is liable for $32,837.50 for

missing valves is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the CO's discretion. 11. The CO's determination that Yates International is liable for $31,837.41 to secure

the facility and $62,901.88 for removal of debris from the Yates International facility is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the CO's discretion. 12. Yates reserves the right to amend this Answer and rely on any defense ­ factual, legal

or otherwise ­ that is or may be justified by the information adduced during discovery or by the evidence at trial. WHEREFORE, Yates International, L.L.C., by counsel, requests this Court enter an order (1) dismissing the Counterclaim filed against Yates; (2) awarding Yates its costs and attorneys' fees; and (3) granting all other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.

Dated: February 26, 2007

6

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 7 of 8

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Robert E. Korroch Williams Mullen Fountain Plaza Three, Suite 200 721 Lakefront Commons Newport News, Virginia 23606 [email protected] 757.249.5100 (telephone) 757.249.5109 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 23

Filed 02/26/2007

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on February 26, 2007, a copy of the foregoing "PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM" 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ Robert E. Korroch
1171444v1

8