United States Federal Circuit

In a dispute arising after plaintiff entered into a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a structure at an Army airfield, a judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over the government's claims that: 1) it was not entitled to additional costs arising from use of a certain profilographic test method; 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not have jurisdiction to entertain a concrete paving claim; and 3) that the lower court erred in the quantum of damages awarded to plaintiff with regards to a differing site condition earthwork claim.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/19/2007
• Published 09/19/2007

Judges

• NEWMAN, Circuit Judge., Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• W. Robert Vezina, III, Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., of Tallahassee, FL, argued for plaintiff-appellee., Timothy P. McIlmail, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant.   With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant Director.   Of counsel was Lloyd Rex Crosswhite, Office of Counsel, United States Army Corps of Engineers, of Fort Worth, TX.