Case 1:06-cv-00150-CCM
Document 15
Filed 10/25/2006
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS VERIDYNE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. 06-150C (Judge Block)
JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Appendix A, Part III, of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the parties submit the following Joint Preliminary Status Report. A. Jurisdiction
Veridyne Corporation ("Veridyne") asserts jurisdiction pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. Defendant is not aware of a basis upon which to challenge jurisdiction at this time. B. Consolidation
The parties agree that this case should not be consolidated with any other case. C. Bifurcation
The parties agree that the trial of liability and damages should not be bifurcated. D. Deferral
The parties are not aware of any related cases currently pending in this or any other tribunal and, accordingly, the proceedings in this case should not be deferred pending consideration of any other case. E. Remand/Suspension
Neither party will seek to remand or suspend this case.
Case 1:06-cv-00150-CCM
Document 15
Filed 10/25/2006
Page 2 of 5
F.
Joinder of Additional Parties
At this time, neither party intends to join additional parties. G. Motions Pursuant to RCFC 12(b), 12(c) or 56
No motions pursuant to RCFC 12(b), 12(c) or 56 have been filed. Veridyne is currently preparing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to RCFC 56 on Count I of its Amended Complaint. H. Relevant Questions
Plaintiff: 1. Whether Modification 0023 was a valid contract action, since its was executed by
contracting officers from both MARAD and SBA allegedly acting within their authority. 2. Whether Modification 0023, if it was not within the authority of the SBA and
MARAD contracting officers, is binding upon defendant pursuant to the doctrine of institutional ratification. 3. Whether defendant waived its right to deny the effectiveness of Modification
0023, by exercising at least three (3) contract extension options and by the continued issuance of work orders after it was aware that the estimated dollar amount set forth in Modification 0023 had been exceeded. 4. Whether defendant is barred from denying the effectiveness of Modification 0023
by the doctrine of estoppel in pais. 5. Whether, irrespective of whether Modification 0023 is valid, plaintiff is entitled to
payment of its invoices, since all the services were provided pursuant to work orders issued by MARAD contracting officers allegedly acting within their authority after MARAD knew that the 2
Case 1:06-cv-00150-CCM
Document 15
Filed 10/25/2006
Page 3 of 5
estimate in Modification 0023 had been exceeded. 6. Whether, in the event Modification 0023 is not valid, plaintiff is entitled to
payment of its invoices under the doctrine of quantum meruit. Defendant: 1. Whether Modification 0023 of the contract at issue was void ab initio due to
Veridyne's allegedly knowing misrepresentation of its proposed cost, which resulted in Modification 0023's execution in violation of statutory controls upon the Federal procurement process calling for open competition. 2. Whether, if Modification 0023 was void ab initio, the United States is entitled to
recover consideration paid upon work orders issued pursuant to Modification 0023 and owes no payment to Veridyne. 3. Whether Veridyne's allegedly knowing misrepresentation of the proposed cost of
Modification 0023 tainted the contract with fraud and entitles the United States to a finding of fraud and a judgment of forfeiture pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2514. I. Settlement
At this time, the parties believe it is too early in the litigation to provide an opinion as to the likelihood of settlement. The parties will consider settling some or all of the claims as this litigation progresses. J. Trial
In the absence of a settlement or disposition of the case through pre-trial motions, the parties anticipate that the case will proceed to trial. Neither party requests an expedited trial schedule. 3
Case 1:06-cv-00150-CCM
Document 15
Filed 10/25/2006
Page 4 of 5
K.
Electronic Case Management
This case is already designated as an electronic filing case and counsel for both parties are certified for Electronic Case Management. L. Additional Issues
The parties are unaware of any additional information that the Court should be aware of at this time. Proposed Discovery Plan Pursuant to RCFC Appendix A, ¶ 5, the parties propose the following discovery plan: a. Initial Disclosures pursuant to RCFC 26(a)(1) shall be served on or before December 7, 2006. b. All discovery in this action shall be completed on or before October 1, 2007.
Date: October 25, 2006
Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General
DAVID M. COHEN Director
STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director
/s/ Marc Lamer MARC LAMER Kostos and Lamer, P.C. 1608 Walnut Street Suite 1300 4
/s/ Anuj Vohra ANUJ VOHRA Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division
Case 1:06-cv-00150-CCM
Document 15
Filed 10/25/2006
Page 5 of 5
Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.545.0570 215.545.4617 Attorney for Plaintiff
U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 202.353.0521 202.307.0972
Attorneys for Defendant
5