Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 

Govt. Promises Plus Contractor's Repair Work May Equala Contract

Thursday, September 01, 2011 07:27 am


Implied-In-Fact Contract

ASFA Construction Industry and Trade, Inc., 2011 ASBCA No. 57269 (June 23, 2011)

A contractor claimed it was entitled to recovery under an implied-in-fact contract where the government was aware of, encouraged and then directly benefitted from the contractor's performance.

ASFA Construction Industry and Trade, Inc. (AFSA) claimed close to $500,000 in equitable adjustment (or a termination for convenience settlement) based on an alleged implied-in-fact contract with the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC) to repair and operate an asphalt plant and rock crusher in Balad, Iraq. The government denied the claim. When ASFA appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, JCC argued that the Board had no jurisdiction as there was no contract between the parties. The Board denied the government's motion to dismiss, finding facts in dispute.

It was undisputed that the government did not issue a formal, firm, fixed-price contract to ASFA. Still, JCC notified ASFA that it had been selected as the contractor to build both a concrete [...]

› Next article: 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close