Free Joint Preliminary Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SCHOLTEN ROOFING SERVICES COMPANY, ) Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) No. 02-1856C ) )(Senior Judge Bruggink) ) )

JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Appendix A of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (ARCFC@), plaintiff, Scholten Roofing Services Company ("Scholten"), and the defendant, the United States, respectfully submit this Joint Preliminary Status Report (AJPSR@). 4.A. Does the court have jurisdiction over the action?

The parties are not presently aware of anything that would prohibit the Court from exercising jurisdiction over matters alleged in the complaint and the counterclaim, pursuant to section 609 of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 601, et seq. ("CDA"), and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). B. Should the case be consolidated with any other case and

the reasons therefore? No.

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 2 of 8

C.

Should trial of liability and damages be bifurcated, and

the reasons therefore? No. D. Should further proceedings in this case be deferred

pending consideration of another case before this court or any other tribunal and the reasons therefore? No. E. In cases other than tax refund actions, will a remand or

suspension be sought and the reasons therefore and the proposed duration? No. F. Will additional parties be joined and, if so, a

statement describing such parties, their relationship to the case, and the efforts to effect joinder and the schedule proposed to effect joinder? No. G. Does either party intend to file a motion pursuant to

RCFC 12(b), 12(c) or 56, and, if so, a schedule for the intended filing? No. H. What are the relevant issues?

The parties respectfully submit the following separate statements of relevant factual and legal issues. -2-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 3 of 8

Statement by Scholten 1. The Defendant issued plans and specifications that

required the use of specific roofing materials to be installed on four hanger roofs. Plaintiff installed the required roofing However, the roofs on all four hangers

materials as directed.

subsequently developed leaks and other defects, compensation for which the Air Force now claims to be entitled to from Scholten. The issue is whether the Air Force's specified roofing materials were fit for their intended purpose. Specifically, whether the

roofing material was suitable for installation on the aluminum hangar roofs, and if not, whether the defective plans and specifications were the cause of the Air Force's claimed damages. 2. The original specifications required the removal of the

existing roofing materials on the 4 hangers prior to the installation of the new roofing. However, during the bidding

process, it was discovered that the previous roofing materials contained asbestos. As a result, the Air Force issued addenda to

the specifications directing all bidders to install the new roofing materials over the existing materials. The issue is

whether the Air Force's addenda to the specifications regarding installation contributed to the failure of the roofing system. 3. During and after installation, the Air Force commenced This

replacement of the hangar doors on all four hangers.

replacement required extensive modifications to the hanger

-3-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 4 of 8

structures.

The issue is whether these changes to the hangar

structures contributed to the failure of the roofing system. 4. In the spring of 2001, a substantial earthquake struck Following this

the region in which the hangers were located.

earthquake, the Air Force directed Scholten to return to the site and repair the roofs. The issue is whether the earthquake

contributed to the failure of the roofing systems, and if so, is Scholten responsible for the costs associated with the repair of earthquake-caused damage. Statement by the United States Did Scholten warrant that the roof installation would conform to the contract requirements, and be free of any defect in material, design furnished, and workmanship? Within the contract warranty period, did Scholten fail to properly remedy the defects of the installed roof? If the defects were not remedied within the contract warranty period, what is the proper calculation of damages suffered by the United States?

-4-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 5 of 8

I.

What is the likelihood of settlement?

Is alternative

dispute resolution contemplated? Settlement is unlikely. Settlement negotiations have The parties

occurred, but are not active at the present time.

may seek the appointment of a settlement judge to conduct alternative dispute resolution proceedings after some expert discovery has occurred. J. Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial? Does any

party or do the parties jointly request expedited trial scheduling? Trial is likely. The parties agree that expedited trial

scheduling would not be in the interests of justice or judicial economy. K. Are There Special Issues Regarding Electronic Case

Management Needs? No. L. Is there any other information of which the court should

be aware at this time? No. 5. 1. Proposed Discovery Plan Fact discovery should be completed by July 15, 2004.

All requests pursuant to RCFC 31, 33, 34 and 36 served after June 15, 2004, shall be deemed untimely. 2. The party with the burden of proof regarding an issue -5-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 6 of 8

shall disclose its testifying experts, the information required by RCFC 26(a)(2), and all expert reports by August 15, 2004. 3. All rebuttal experts, required information, and expert

reports shall be disclosed by September 30, 2004. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by

October 31, 2004. 5. Summary judgment motions, if any, shall be filed by

November 15, 2004. 6. A status conference shall be held on or about November

30, 2004 to discuss the status of the case, and to establish any necessary pretrial schedule. Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,

S/ Sam E. Baker, Jr. SAM E. BAKER, JR. PETER D. KEISLER Oles Morrison Rinker Assistant Attorney General & Baker, LLP 701 Pike Street Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3930 DAVID M. COHEN Tel: (206) 623-3427 Director Fax: (206) 682-6234 S/ Kathryn A. Bleecker Attorney for Plaintiff KATHRYN A. BLEECKER Assistant Director

-6-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 7 of 8

S/ James W. Poirier JAMES W. POIRIER Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-6289 Fax: (202) 514-7969 September 26, 2003 Attorneys for Defendant

-7-

Case 1:02-cv-01856-EGB

Document 17

Filed 09/26/2003

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on September 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing "JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT" 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. system. S/ James W. Poirier Parties may access this filing through the Court's

-8-