A-Transport Northwest Co., Inc. v. United States
36 F.3d 1576 | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | 1994
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A-Transport, a trucking company, held a government contract to transport goods from a Seattle warehouse. When the government relocated the warehouse, it resolicited bids under a change-of-supply-point clause in the original contract. A-Transport sued, claiming breach. The court ruled the government acted within its contractual rights and did not breach in bad faith. This matters because it shows courts will enforce broad change clauses that give the government flexibility to modify work locations.
Key Takeaways
- •Change-of-supply-point and change-of-location clauses in government contracts are enforceable and give the government wide latitude to modify where work is performed without breaching the agreement.
- •Simply resoliciting work after a location change is not bad faith if the contract language permits it—you must prove the government acted dishonestly or with improper motive, not just that you lost the job.
- •Include specific limits and notice requirements in your change clauses during negotiation; broad, undefined change rights favor the government and can eliminate your competitive advantage.
The Government's selection of A-Transport gave rise to a binding contract between them.
Frequently Asked Question
Can the government resolicitate my contract work if they move the job location?
Yes, if your contract includes a change-of-supply-point or change-of-location clause. Courts will enforce these clauses even if you lose the work. To protect yourself, negotiate specific limits on how and when the government can invoke such clauses, require advance notice, and define what constitutes a qualifying change.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.