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

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS YATES INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. COFC No. 06-157C (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"), states as follows: 1. 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. 2. 3. 4. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 189 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 190 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 191 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 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. 6. 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. 7. Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 194 of the Counterclaim. 1

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 2 of 8

8. 9.

Yates denies the allegation contained in paragraph 195 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 196 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 197 of the Counterclaim. The allegation contained in paragraph 198 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 199 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 200 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 14. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 201 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 201. 15. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 202 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 202. 16. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 203 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 203. 17. 18. Yates denies the allegation in paragraph 204 of the Counterclaim. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 205 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 3 of 8

19.

Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 206 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 20. Yates denies the allegations contained in paragraph 207 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 21. Yates admits the allegation in paragraph 208 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 208. 22. The allegation contained in paragraph 209 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 210 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 211 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 212 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 213 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 214 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 215 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 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 4 of 8

29.

The allegation contained in paragraph 216 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 217 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 218 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 219 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 220 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 221 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 222 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 223 of the Counterclaim and demands

strict proof thereof. 37. The allegation contained in paragraph 224 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 225 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 225.

4

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 5 of 8

39.

The allegation contained in paragraph 226 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 227 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 228 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 229 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 230 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 14

Filed 09/14/2006

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.

6

Case 1:06-cv-00157-FMA

Document 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 7 of 8

Dated: September 14, 2006

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 14

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on September 14, 2006, 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
#1135347 v1 - Answer to Counterclaims

8