Free Proposed Additional Facts - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION,

No. 04-632C (Judge Bush)

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED PROPOSED ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT REGARDING OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONCERNING AMENDED COMPLAINT

1.

Contract No. F49642-88-D-0054, ("the Prime

Contract") was a contract between the Small Business Administration ("SBA") and the Air Force District of Washington ("defendant"). See Plaintiff's Appendix to

Amended Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Amended Complaint ("A__") at 2, 60; Defendant's Appendix to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Amended Complaint ("DA__") at 18. 2. Plaintiff Information Systems & Networks

Corporation ("ISN") entered into Subcontract no. 3-88-12885 ("the Subcontract") with the SBA. DA at 2. 3. In September 1988, ISN, SBA, and defendant See A at 2, 59; See

entered into a Tripartite Agreement covering the Subcontract and the Prime Contract. 1 See DA at 2. Included

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 2 of 6

within the Tripartite Agreement are the various Prime Contract provisions including standard FAR provisions. DA at 1-60. Provision 23, entitled "Subcontract See

Provisions," sets forth the rights and obligations of ISN and defendant under the Subcontract including ISN's obligation to perform the Subcontract in accordance with the terms of the Prime Contract in exchange for the defendant paying ISN under the Subcontract in accordance with the terms of the Prime Contract. 18. See A at 60; DA at

The Tripartite Agreement also contained FAR 52.216-18

which states that supplies or services furnished under the Subcontract were to be delivered through Delivery Orders ("DO"s). 4. See DA at 13. The Air Force issued Delivery Order 6009 on See A at 12.

September 14, 1989.

5.

On or about October 23, 1991, ISN submitted a

certified CDA Claim for $1,383,111, which represented payment of claimed amounts plus CDA interest in connection with the termination of DO 6009. 6. See A at 38.

The cognizant contracting officer did not issue See A at 40. ISN

a final decision on ISN's CDA claim.

filed a notice of appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") based upon the deemed-denial of

2

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 3 of 6

its claim on May 21, 1993. assigned ASBCA No. 46119. 7.

See A at 40. See A at 40.

The case was

On July 10, 2002, the ASBCA issued its Opinion. The ASBCA Opinion concluded that ISN was

See A at 51.

entitled to recover damages for various losses and costs incurred on the 4 sites under the Delivery Order. 41 to 51. See A at

It also stated that the Subcontract and Prime See A at 2.

Contract were distinct from one another. 8.

The ASBCA Opinion remanded to the parties the

resolution of the quantum of the issues decided in ISN's favor on entitlement. 9. See A at 51.

On April 14, 2003, ISN executed a settlement

agreement with the government only related to the four claims set forth in the Opinion as well as claims under the Prime Contract, but it did not relate to the Subcontract, which is a separate agreement. F-G. 10. The "subject contract" referred to in the See A at 56-57; See DA at

settlement agreement was Prime Contract No. F49642-88-D0054 only. See A at 56-57; See DA at F-G. 11. Subcontract no. 3-88-1-2885 was not a "subject See A at 56-57;

contract" under the settlement agreement. See DA at F-G.

3

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 4 of 6

12.

While the settlement resolved issues arising

under the Delivery Order, it had no bearing on separate entitlements arising under the Subcontract between ISN and the defendant. See A at 56-57; See DA at F-G. Neither

party contemplated the inclusion of the Subcontract within the scope of the settlement agreement. DA at F-G. See A at 56-57; See

Specifically, ISN's entitlement to indirect

costs and profit are not within the scope of the April 14, 2003 settlement agreement. See A at 56-57; See DA at F-G.

13.

Under the terms set forth in Table B1 of the

Subcontract, ISN is entitled to reimbursement of indirect costs and profit. See A at 58 and DA at 4.

Dated:

June 29, 2005

Respectfully Submitted, SINGER & ASSOCIATES, PC

By:

_s/ Norman H. Singer_________ NORMAN H. SINGER, Esquire 10411 Motor City Drive Suite 725 Bethesda, Maryland 20817 Tel. (301) 469-0400 Fax (301) 469-0403
Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED PROPOSED ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF

4

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 5 of 6

UNCONTROVERTED FACT REGARDING OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONCERNING AMENDED COMPLAINT was filed electronically this 29th day of June, 2005, and served via email on counsel for defendant by virtue of electronic filing.

s/ Norman H. Singer_______ NORMAN H. SINGER, Esquire

5

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LJB

Document 36

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 6 of 6

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.