Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 363.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 728 Words, 4,646 Characters
Page Size: 612 x 789 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/19470/25-21.pdf

Download Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims ( 363.3 kB)


Preview Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:05-cv-00183-NBF

Document 25-21

Filed 08/10/2006

Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 20

07/21/05 14:07 FAX 2166811709
···

DCMAE-GZG

015

Case 1:05-cv-00183-NBF
216- 3590

Document 25-21

Filed 08/10/2006
OFFICES

Page 2 of 3
PAGE 02

10/12/2004 12:43

FREEDMAN LAW

The Law Offices
Of

STEVEN
5 25 WARRENSVILLE CENTER ROAD CLEVELAND, OHIO 44137-3125 TELEPHON : (216) 249-3199

A. FREEDMAN, ESQ., INC
diarrioN4
T 1 NiinaMSS_

A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA TION

5

E

FACSIMILE: (216) 662.3590

13506 LORAIN AVENUE, CLEVELAND, (N1044111 111518 Summit AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44110 571 East 185th STREET, EUCLID, ono 44119 13329 EUCLID AVENUE, EAST CLEVELAN D, Ohio 44112

October 1 I, 2004 Defense Contract Management Agency Defense Contract Management Agency East Defense Contract Management Agency Cleveland Admiral Kidd Center 555 East 88th Street Bratenahl, OH 44108-1068 ATTENTION: KENNETH D. FREEZE CPCM Dear Mr. Freeze: Re DCMAE-GYZI; Extension to Contract # SPO7 50-04-M-9839 As General Counsel for Euclid Machine, Inc. ( Euclid), subcontractor to Kaeper Machine ("Kaeper;), prime contractor on the above-referenced contract, I have been requested to respond to your letter to Kaeper of October 8, 2004. Mr. Jefferis, the consultant working with Kaeper in connection with this contract, provided a copy of your letter to Euclid so that it would be aware of recent developments. As you have already been made aware, forty-six (46) of the one hundred and forty-six (146) parts ordered pursuant to the referenced contract have already been completed, and await only final impaction, approval, and acceptance by your Department before they can be delivered. The remaining one hundred (100) pieces are also completely machined and ready for inspection, and require only painting (and inspection of the painting) before they, too, can be delivered. All issues related to any Corrective Action Request ("CAR") previously issued in connection with the ordered parts have been. resolved, and all requested corrective actions on these parts were completed by both the prime arid subcontractors on a timely basis which, if required inspections" had been timely completed per the contractors' requests to your Department, would have resulted in delivery of all ordered parts on or before the extended contract delivery date ("CDD"). If the Government's reluctance to further extend the CDD by the few days needed to complete the inspection, painting and subsequent re-inspection of the now finished-but-unpainted pieces is based uponany time-sensitivity for acquisition of the parts, termination of the contract will certainly not address that concern, There would be no time-benefit gained by refusing to inspect and accept the completely-finished parts which. arenowgiftnadwitngfordelvy,anthosewic require only painting and final paint-inspection, and subsequently seeking bids for a new contract

07/21/05 14:07 FAX 2166811709

DCMAE-GZG
... ·-·· · ·


V1016

Case 1:05-cv-00183-NBF
··· .11

Document 25-21

Filed 08/10/2006

Page 3 of 3
PAGE 03

43 10/12/2 04 12:43

0

216-662-3590

FREEDMAN LAW OFFICES

The Law Offices Of

STEVEN A. FREEDMAN, ESQ., INC.
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Kenneth a Freeze OctoberI,204 Page 2

for these same parts from a new supplier which will have to start the manufacturing process from the beginning. The immediate availability of the parts on hand provides the Government with the best opportunity to fulfill the duty to mitigate which is incumbent upon all parties to contracts, even the Goverment. Al o, since at least part of the failure to deliver the completed parts by October 2004, was the direct remit of your Department providing inadequate documentation to Euclid in connection with the CAR, and the unavailability of any inspector prior to October 12, 2004, due to

stafmeingd/orlhaysfectingurDpm'swokchedul,it ma the most reasonable and laical course of notion would be for the Government to reconsider its threatened cancellation of the contract, and for all parties to make arrangements for the immediate inspection of the completely-finished parts, the painting and final inspection of the as yet-unpainted parts, and the prompt conclusion of this matter to their joint and mutual satisfaction.

matter.

It is my sincere hope that this matter can. be resolved between the three principals without my further involvement However, if necessary, T am available at your convenience to discuss this matter with you at any time. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this Very truly yours,
Fredman

STEVEN A. FREEDMAN

cc:

Euclid. Machine, Inc. Kaepr.Mchin