Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01121-EJD

Document 43

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 05-1121 C (Filed: April 2, 2008)

***************************************** WEST COAST CONTRACTORS OF * NEVADA, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ***************************************** NOTICE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Court wishes to advise the parties of the issues that will be the subject of tomorrow's oral argument on Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in this case, as well as the format the argument will follow. The parties should be prepared to explain in further detail: 1. What is the precise meaning of Part 1.1.1 of Section 01112 of the contract? For example, what does this provision mean in distinguishing between "partial design in architectural and engineering disciplines" and "material specifications?" Do the specifications at issue in Defendant's motion­the weight of the chiller, the air handling unit's capacity, and the grade beam and pile cap elevations­qualify as "partial design[s]" or "material specifications?" And what does the contract mean in referring to the "Government's applicable portion of the preliminary design?" Part 1.1.1 of Section 0112 of the contract also states that "[t]he final design developed by the contractor shall combined [sic] the requirements in this section with the preliminary design to produce a complete design package suitable for construction?" Is Part 1.6.1(b) of Section 01112 such a requirement? What compensation does Plaintiff seek in regard to its increased design costs claim­$37,500 as stated in the Complaint or the $36,000 stemming from the Settlement Agreement? See Complaint ¶¶ 20-27; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Corrected Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 11-12.

2.

3.

Case 1:05-cv-01121-EJD

Document 43

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

4.

In determining whether Defendant is liable for any portion of the $36,000 specified in the Settlement Agreement, can the Court determine the extent to which Defendant caused Plaintiff to incur additional expenses from its design firm and grant recovery of these expenses up to $36,000?

Counsel for both parties should be aware that the Court intends to devote most of the session to asking specific questions having to do with these issues. Only after the Court's questions have been answered will counsel be allowed to address matters to which the questions did not pertain if they so desire, as long as there is no duplication. s/Edward J. Damich EDWARD J. DAMICH Chief Judge

2