United States Federal Circuit

In a military supply contractor's appeal, seeking an increase in contract price as a basis for a later claim of termination damages, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals properly rejected plaintiff's claim for engineering and administration costs and "time extension impact" claim, and the decision not to award interest on amounts allowed as prospective costs was correct.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/24/2002
• Published 09/24/2002

Judges

• BRYSON, Circuit Judge., Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Mitchell Y. Mirviss,Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP, of Baltimore, MD, argued for appellant.   Of counsel on the brief were Thomas J. Madden and Rebecca E. Pearson, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, of Washington, DC.


• For Appellees:
  
• Steve J. Gillingham, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee.   With him on the brief were Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General;  and David M. Cohen, Director.   Of counsel on the brief was Craig Clarke, Deputy Chief Trial Attorney, Contract Appeals Division, Litigation Center, Department of the Army, of Arlington, VA.