Aptus Co. v. United States
62 Fed. Cl. 808 | United States Court of Federal Claims | 2004
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Aptus Company lost its contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a hydroelectric power plant modernization project when the government terminated it for default. Aptus then asked the court to reconsider its decision, but the court refused because Aptus failed to show any serious legal errors or new facts that would justify changing the ruling. The court made clear that simply disagreeing with a judgment or presenting the same arguments again is not enough to get a second look.
Key Takeaways
- •Default terminations are hard to overturn in court—you must prove the government acted wrongly, not just that you disagree with the decision
- •Motions to reconsider only work if you can show a clear legal mistake or a fact the court missed the first time; repeating old arguments wastes time and money
- •Document everything during contract performance (schedules, communications, delays, obstacles) because the burden is on you to prove the government terminated you unfairly
Motions for reconsideration require manifest error of law or mistake of fact.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get a court to reconsider a default termination decision if I disagree with it?
No, not unless you can prove the court made a clear legal error or overlooked important facts. Simply disagreeing with the ruling or repeating the same arguments won't work. You need new evidence or a demonstration that the judge misunderstood the law.
Related Cases
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.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.