Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 29
No. 03-289C IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director
OF COUNSEL: KATHLEEN HALLAM Chief Trial Attorney Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
KYLE CHADWICK Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Department of Justice Attn: Classification, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7562 Fax: (202) 305-7644 Attorneys for Defendant
December 19, 2003
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PREFACE TO AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Summary Judgment Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Multiple Disputes Of Fact Exist As To Whether Orders For Requirements Were Improperly Diverted From United Medical . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. Multiple Disputes Of Fact Exist As To Whether United Medical Has Been Paid For The Items It Delivered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. The Court Should Enter Partial Summary Judgment Rejecting Two Of United Medical's Damages Theories A.
14
. . . . . . .
15
United Medical Is Not Entitled To Recover Simply Because It Failed To Make Sales Equal To 90 Percent Of The Solicitation Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Medical Is Not Entitled To Recover Goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 17 19 20
B. V. CONCLUSION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Dalton v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 98 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 302 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . .
17, 18 15
Grumman Data System Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d 990 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Montana v. United States, 124 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 524 F.2d 707 (Ct. Cl. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olin Jones Sand Co. v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. 741 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olympus Corp. v. United States, 98 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 16 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 15 16 17 16
PCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 242 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiman, S.A. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 171 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ramsey v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 101 F. Supp. 353 (1951) . . . . . . . . . .
San Carlos Irrig. & Drainage District v. United States, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southern Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 598 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 29
Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Travel Centre v. Barram, 236 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . STATUTES 41 U.S.C. § 609 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 15
16, 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 29
INDEX TO APPENDIX November 26, 2003 Affidavit of Linda Flatley March 26, 1996 Amendment 00014 May 25, 1995 Government letter Page . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 24 26 28 31 32 34 41 42 44 45 49 51
1995 Customer responses to requests for estimates . . . . . . Award document stockless option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 30, 1997 United Medical letter to customers . . . . . . Amendment 00016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amendment 00017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amendment 00018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 11, 1997 Government e-mail concerning performance . . .
September 17, 1997 Government letter concerning performance . September 19, 1997 Government letter concerning performance . October 21, 1997 Government letter concerning split shipments December 3, 1997 Government trip report . . . . . . . . . . . December 1997 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
December 5, 1997 letter from plaintiff regarding lack of DAPA holder agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
October 30, 1997 Government letter concerning lack of DAPA holder agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 January 1998 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 24, 1998 Government letter reporting deficiencies March 31, 1998 Government letter seeking information February April 1998 fill rates . 61 63 67 72
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 29
April 21, 1998 letter from plaintiff May December 1998 fill rates
. . . . . . . . . . . .
78 84
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
January 19, 1999 customer e-mail concerning performance . . . 100 February 11, 1999 Government memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . 104 February March 1999 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
April 8, 1999 Government e-mail concerning customer complaint 111 April 26, 1999 customer response to above . . . . . . . . . . 120 April 1999 customer complaints April June 1999 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
June 11, 1999 customer complaint
July December 1999 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 December 9, 1999 plaintiff facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
January March 2000 fill rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 January 6, 2000 customer complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 . . . . . . . . 157
March 22, 2000 customer complaint and update March 23, 2000 modification P00020 April 5, 2000 customer complaint April June 2000 fill rates
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
July 25, 2000 Government e-mail concerning El Paso warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 July 26, 2000 Government e-mail concerning alleged nonpayment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 August 11, 2000 Government e-mail concerning El Paso warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 August 14, 2000 Government e-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 29
August 15, 2000 customer complaint concerning El Paso warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 August 29, 2000 customer complaint concerning El Paso warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 October 25, 2000 customer complaint concerning El Paso warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 October 31, 2000 Government e-mail concerning Fort Huachuca complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 November 7, 2000 Government e-mail concerning Kirtland AFB complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 November 12, 2000 customer complaint November 13, 2000 customer complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
November 25, 2003 affidavit of Donna Galligan, with attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 November 26, 2003 Government e-mail concerning alleged diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 November 20, 2003 e-mail from counsel for plaintiff, with attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Plaintiff's responses to defendant's interrogatories and requests for production of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. 03-289C (Judge Allegra)
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Court's Rules ("RCFC"), the United States respectfully opposes plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and requests the Court to enter partial summary judgment for the Government regarding (1) the unavailability of a price adjustment simply because purchases did not equal 90 percent of the contract estimates and (2) the unrecoverability of goodwill. In support of our opposition and cross-motion, we rely upon this brief and the accompanying response to plaintiff's proposed findings of fact; defendant's proposed findings of fact; and appendix, including affidavits of the contracting officer, Linda Flatley, and a prime vendor program team leader, Donna Galligan. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether genuine disputes of material fact exist with
respect to the Government's liability to plaintiff, United Medical Supply Company, Inc. ("United Medical"), for purchases
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 29
from third parties of hospital supplies that were covered by United Medical's requirements contract ("diverted" purchases). 2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact exist with
respect to the Government's liability to United Medical for nonpayment for supplies ordered and received under the contract. 3. Whether the Government is liable to United Medical
solely because purchases under the contract were less than 90 percent of the estimates provided in the solicitation. 4. If any liability is established, whether genuine issues
of material fact exist with respect to quantum. 5. Whether or not liability is established, whether the
damages sought by United Medical for loss of reputation and goodwill are unrecoverable as a matter of law. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff correctly summarizes the case at page 5 of its moving brief. Although the procedural history has no direct
bearing upon the cross-motions, we note that United Medical's bankruptcy complaint against the United States was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 609, and the bankruptcy court transferred the action to this Court in the interest of justice.
2
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 29
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS The facts established in our accompanying factual statement, concerning United Medical's subpar performance in the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia's ("DSCP's") "prime vendor" program for medical and surgical supplies, render summary judgment for United Medical inappropriate. We describe there, among other
things, the nature of the estimates provided by the Government for this requirements contract which estimates United Medical fundamentally misconstrues in its motion as well as the numerous, severe, and persistent problems created by United Medical's failure, throughout the contract term, to provide shipping and billing information in the proper formats and to cooperate with DSCP's efforts to address United Medical's claims of nonpayment. We further note that diligent and time-consuming
research by DSCP personnel has revealed many of United Medical's nonpayment claims to be wholly and demonstrably unfounded. In general, our factual submissions (including our separate response to United Medical's conclusory assertions of fact), which we respectfully incorporate here, establish that the Court cannot with any confidence (1) determine whether United Medical's allegations of diversion and nonpayment have merit or, assuming they do, (2) fairly measure United Medical's damages.
3
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 29
PREFACE TO AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT United Medical's premature and somewhat disjointed motion succeeds in raising a specter of potential Government liability, but fails to establish either liability or quantifiable damages. United Medical's fundamental contention, which it repeats in several variations, is that the Government must have breached the prime vendor contract because actual purchases by participating medical facilities from holders of Distribution and Pricing Agreements ("DAPAs"), for which United Medical was the distributor, underran the contract estimates. or factual basis to make that leap. The estimates upon which United Medical so heavily relies do not, by their terms, purport to measure the hospitals' actual purchases of "DAPA items"; nor did those estimates represent guaranteed volume for United Medical under its contract. Instead, as explained in our accompanying proposed findings, the estimates were based upon total annual purchases of the "types" of medical and surgical items covered by DAPAs and the solicitation expressly described the estimates as "potential" volumes that might not be achieved by the prime vendor. It was There is no legal
up to United Medical, as the prime vendor, to earn a high volume of business. As demonstrated in our factual statement, United
Medical failed, literally from day one, to do so. 4
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 29
United Medical's fundamental misunderstanding of the contract estimates has at least two important ramifications for its motion. First, United Medical's failure to achieve the
estimated, "potential" sales volume is not, in itself, an actionable breach by the Government. Second, and equally
important, because United Medical relies exclusively upon the contract estimates to quantify the supposed "diversion" of requirements purchases from United Medical to third parties, its quantum calculation for diversion is utterly baseless. There is neither a legal nor a factual basis for United Medical's presumption that it "should have" made sales commensurate with the estimates provided in the solicitation. Accordingly, there is no basis for United Medical to assert that the volume of "diverted" purchases equals the estimated sales volume minus United Medical's actual sales. This is especially
true since United Medical's performance, billing, and record keeping failures are demonstrably to blame for some portion perhaps the majority of the alleged purchase diversions. Finally, in addition to this fundamental problem of quantification, two of United Medical's damages theories are legally untenable. First, plaintiff is not entitled to a price
adjustment merely because sales did not equal 90 percent of the estimates. Although we dispute that the language United Medical 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 29
inserted into the solicitation ever became part of the contract (which contains another provision stating exactly the opposite), even if it did, the most to which the inserted provision might have entitled United Medical was "renegotiation" of its distribution fee, which plaintiff never requested. Nor is United Medical entitled to "goodwill" damages since, under these circumstances, a valuation based upon future income from other contracts is impermissibly remote from the alleged breach and speculative. ARGUMENT I. The Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is "designed 'to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1), and should be granted when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." RCFC 56(c); accord Montana v. United
States, 124 F.3d 1269, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A factual issue is "material" only if it could affect the outcome in light of the applicable law. Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Anderson v. Liberty A "genuine" factual
dispute exists only if a reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party. Id. The movant need not "produce evidence" 6
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 29
of the absence of factual disputes; it need only "point[] out" that the record does not support the other party's case. Sweats
Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). Legal issues of contract interpretation may be resolved by summary judgment. See Olympus Corp. v. United States, 98 F.3d
1314, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1996). II. Multiple Disputes Of Fact Exist As To Whether Orders For Requirements Were Improperly Diverted From United Medical United Medical's basic argument regarding liability for diverted purchases runs as follows: (1) agree. This was a requirements contract. Pl. Br. 8-9. We
Def. PFF 3, 9-10. The subject "requirements" included those items that
(2)
were available from suppliers that had signed DAPAs with DSCP ("DAPA holders"), with whom United Medical had negotiated distribution agreements. Pl. Br. 10-11. We agree, Def. PFF
15-18 however, throughout the contract term, there existed dozens of DAPA holders for whom United Medical was not authorized to distribute any items. Def. PFF 45-46, 49, 57, 60.
Accordingly, there is, at minimum, a genuine dispute of fact with respect to United Medical's claim that it "was an authorized distributor for essentially all DAPA items." Pl. Br. 13
7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 29
(emphasis added).
Indeed, the vague wording of the latter
allegation confirms that United Medical was not authorized to distribute all DAPA items and gives rise to a dispute of fact as to exactly which DAPA items were required to be purchased from United Medical, and which were not. To the extent United Medical could not distribute DAPA items, there was no "diversion" when military hospitals purchased those items elsewhere. Furthermore, as discussed further below,
even when United Medical had entered into the necessary distribution agreements, it often cancelled orders or failed to deliver DAPA items in a timely manner. When that happened, the Lacking
contract allowed customers to buy the items elsewhere.
information in the record as to which, if any, particular DAPA items were purchased from third parties while United Medical was authorized and able to distribute those particular items, the Court cannot determine liability or damages via summary judgment. (3) Finally, United Medical argues that there is
circumstantial evidence of diverted purchases, in that (i) United Medical's sales under the contract were less than the estimates provided in the solicitation and (ii) there is evidence of concern upon DSCP's part that hospitals were buying supplies with credit cards, rather than through the prime vendor program. Pl. Br. 14-16. We note first that, even assuming the cited 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 29
evidence could support an inference that some diversion took place, absent evidence of the magnitude of diversion, damages are wholly unproven and speculative. In any event, the evidence cited by United Medical leaves genuine disputes of fact as to whether any diversion occurred. To begin, United Medical's reliance upon the estimates provided in the solicitation as a measure of the customers' requirements for DAPA items is fundamentally misplaced. The estimates did not
represent guaranteed DAPA requirements and were never presented that way. From the issuance of the solicitation, the estimate was consistently described as the current requirements for the general "type" of medical and surgical items covered by DAPAs. Def. PFF 10. The prime vendor had the burden, and was offered
the opportunity, to approach that volume of sales by, among other things, securing distribution agreements with as many DAPA holders as possible (including possibly becoming a DAPA holder itself) and providing excellent service requiring a minimum of merchandise returns. areas. United Medical distinctly failed in those
Def. PFF 36-74.
To the extent United Medical could have formed a misimpression as to the nature of the estimate, amendment 0014 to the solicitation, issued in March 1996, should have corrected 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 17 of 29
plaintiff's error.
That amendment unambiguously described the
components of the volume estimate as "potential" sales: The potential dollar value for the stockless portion of this contract in the base year is $23,500,000.00. The remaining $4,857,750.00 is the potential dollar value for the base year for facilities using the JITO/EDO portion of the contract only. For Option years 1-4, the potential dollar value for the stockless portion is $47,000,000.00 and the remaining $9,715,500.00 is the potential dollar value for facilities using the JITO/EDO portion of the contract only. Def. App. 8 (emphasis added). In fact, the Government's volume
estimates included not only DAPA items, but customers' purchases of all surgical/medical items, regardless of whether they were currently covered by a DAPA. Def. PFF 14; Def. App. 261.
Before this litigation, United Medical never questioned the meaning of the Government's estimate of requirements. To the
contrary, United Medical demonstrated it knew it had to apply effort to achieve the potential sales volume. Like all prime
vendors under the program, United Medical was expected to work with customers to find suitable DAPA-covered substitutes for nonDAPA items. Def. PFF 16-18. United Medical confirmed early on
that it understood this.
In an April 1997 letter to the ordering
hospitals, plaintiff advised them, "Keep in mind, at this point in time the goal is to establish accurate Prime Vendor usage data. Items you would like to acquire on the prime vendor 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 18 of 29
program that are not a part of your current usage data will be requested from you at a later time." Def. App. 26-27.
Accordingly, United Medical had no legal expectation of making sales equal to the solicitation estimate. (We demonstrate
below that United Medical's stealthy insertion of a provision in its response to the solicitation, allegedly allowing "renegotiation" of its distribution fee if purchases were lower than 90 percent of the estimate, does not change the analysis.) Equally important, as a matter of fact, the estimate cannot be used here, as plaintiff wishes to use it, to quantify the alleged "diverted" purchases, simply by subtracting United Medical's actual sales from the estimated requirements. Def. App. 280-81 (Pl. Resp. Def. Interrog. 8). Another reason it is inappropriate to measure United Medical's allegedly "lost sales" against the solicitation estimate is that to do so ignores the role that United Medical's persistent and severe delivery, billing, and record keeping problems undoubtedly played in costing United Medical sales. record, as set forth in our proposed findings of fact and supported by our appendix, demonstrates that United Medical failed to meet minimum requirements to meet the existing DAPA needs of the ordering hospitals. The See Pl. Br. 13-14;
11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 19 of 29
Among other things, plaintiff failed to keep "usage data" items in stock, as required. have filled. It "killed" many orders it should
(United Medical's asserted "fill" rates do not
reflect "killed" orders and, therefore, do not accurately measure the extent of its failures to perform. Def. PFF 54.) And it It
precipitously closed a warehouse near El Paso.
continually shipped late and shipped orders that had been cancelled, resulting in excessive returns. Def. PFF 36-74.
At minimum, these facts mean that United Medical's assertion that diverted purchases were the sole or primary cause of its losses is unproven and cannot be resolved by summary judgment. United Medical's presumption that all credit card purchases were "diverted" is similarly unfounded. Under the contract,
customers were required to purchase only DAPA items from United Medical. If a particular item was not available under a DAPA, a See Def. PFF 15-16.
customer could buy it outside the contract.
With compelling justification, customers could also choose a particular DAPA holder, when an item was available from more than one DAPA supplier. Def. PFF 16-18. As noted above, United
Medical failed to form distribution agreements with dozens of DAPA holders. Def. PFF 45-46, 49, 57, 60.
Customers had no obligation to change brands or suppliers to enhance United Medical's profits; and customers were allowed to 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 20 of 29
buy outside the contract when United Medical could not timely deliver the ordered items. Notwithstanding this, customers
expressed disappointment that United Medical never became a DAPA holder and irritation that plaintiff's computer problems, described in our factual statement, required customers to buy outside the contract. E.g., Def. App. 195 ("In August 00, United Material
Medical denied 59 different JIT lines during the month.
Branch was forced to purchase all 59 lines with an IMPAC credit card.") (emphasis added). For these reasons, evidence of credit card orders outside the prime vendor contract is not, in itself, evidence of liability for diversion. And, even if an inference of liability
could be drawn, damages related to credit card purchases cannot be accurately quantified upon this record. Indeed, disputes of fact preclude summary judgment upon any aspect of United Medical's diversion claim. In view of the
multiplicity of unresolved factual questions, described above, relating to liability, there is certainly no basis to adopt United Medical's proposed quantification of its breach damages. See Pl. Br. 23-26. In any event, the lost profits calculation by
plaintiff's expert, Mr. Imel, lacks foundation because it wrongly uses the solicitation estimate as the baseline for expected sales. See Def. App. 280 (Pl. Resp. Def. Interrog. 8). 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 21 of 29
III. Multiple Disputes Of Fact Exist As To Whether United Medical Has Been Paid For The Items It Delivered Nor can judgment be entered upon United Medical's allegations of unpaid invoices. Pl. Br. 17-18. United Medical
expressly bases its claim for $180,156.90 upon "the books and records of United Medical . . . ." Pl. Br. 18. Those books and
records are unreliable and controverted.
As described in our
proposed findings, there is evidence that, at minimum, the claim is overstated. Indeed, far from revealing an absence of material
disputes of fact, the evidence of record raises the possibility there are no overdue invoices at all. Errors by United Medical that resulted in nonpayment or late payment for ordered items include, but are not limited to, (i) delivering orders in more than one shipment, contrary to express contract requirements; (ii) omitting packing slips; (iii) shipping items after cancellation; (iv) errors in electronic billing; (v) late delivery, resulting in returns; and (vi) nondelivery. Def. PFF 61-74. The extent to which these
errors explain the alleged $180,156.90 shortfall simply cannot be determined on this record. Both during contract performance and in recent months, the Government has invested significant time in attempting to determine whether it is responsible for unpaid invoices. United
14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 22 of 29
Medical, surprisingly, has been less than cooperative: for example, failed to provide full order numbers for approximately 250 invoices allegedly outstanding.
It has,
Def. PFF 74.
Although United Medical blames many or most of the unpaid invoices upon a mid-1999 computer problem within DSCP, Pl. Br. 17-18, the alleged nonpayments predate that problem. Furthermore, whereas the computer problem caused invoices to be lost altogether, United Medical complains mainly of "short pays" invoices that were paid in part. Def. PFF 61-63. Had the
invoices been lost by DSCP's computer, there would have been no payments at all. In sum, the nonpayment claim is fundamentally
in dispute and more discovery will be required to resolve it. IV. The Court Should Enter Partial Summary Judgment Rejecting Two Of United Medical's Damages Theories A. United Medical Is Not Entitled To Recover Simply Because It Failed To Make Sales Equal To 90 Percent Of The Solicitation Estimate
The Court should summarily reject United Medical's alternative argument for recovery, pursuant to a clause United Medical unilaterally typed into its response to the solicitation, stating that the prime vendor's distribution fee is "SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION IF VOLUME DOES NOT REACH 90% OF THE STATED CONTRACT AWARD." Pl. Br. 22. There are at least three reasons to deny
recovery as a matter of law.
15
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 23 of 29
First, the typed provision should not be considered part of the contract as awarded. Because United Medical never brought
the inserted language to the attention of the contracting officer, there was no meeting of the minds. See Def. PFF 21.
Second, assuming the contract should be read to contain the typed "subject to renegotiation" clause, inclusion of that clause creates a fundamental and patent ambiguity as to whether a requirements contract or an indefinite quantity contract is contemplated. See Travel Centre v. Barram, 236 F.3d 1316, 1318-
19 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Dalton v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 98 F.3d 1298, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Indeed, the prime vendor contract also contains the standard clause for requirements contracts stating that, if purchases do not reach the estimate, the contractor will not receive a price adjustment. Def. PFF 9. That clause is flatly incompatible with United Medical's reading of
the language typed in by plaintiff.
the contract should not prevail because plaintiff failed to request clarification of the ambiguity it had itself created. Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d 990, 998 (Fed. Cir. 1996); cf. PCL Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 242 (1998) (holding that contractor waived protest of provision that was apparent upon the face of the solicitation).
16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 24 of 29
Finally, assuming the clause typed in by United Medical is to be given effect, United Medical never requested "renegotiation" or submitted a "renegotiation" claim under this clause during contract performance, despite knowing it was not selling DAPA items at a rate of 90 percent of the estimate. PFF 21. United Medical failed to preserve a claim for a Def.
renegotiated price. B. United Medical Is Not Entitled To Recover Goodwill
The Court should also enter partial summary judgment rejecting United Medical's claim for $10 million for lost "goodwill." Pl. Br. 26. The claimed amount is not an actual or
out-of-pocket cost incurred by plaintiff but, instead, represents a speculative lost profits calculation. Remote and consequential damages generally are not recoverable in suits for breach of contract. Northern Helex Co. This is Wells Fargo
v. United States, 524 F.2d 707, 720 (Ct. Cl. 1975). especially true in suits against the United States.
Bank, NA v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1020 (Fed. Cir 1996). To recover, a plaintiff must establish that the Government's breach was the sole cause of its loss. San Carlos Irrig. &
Drainage Dist. v. United States, 111 F.3d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The damages must not result from an intervening event.
Quiman, S.A. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 171, 183 (1997). 17
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 25 of 29
This Court has encountered claims involving goodwill most often in the savings and loan litigation. Thrifts have alleged
that the statutory removal of supervisory goodwill from their regulatory capital caused them to incur costs, including legal and consulting fees, increased capital costs, and increased insurance rates. E.g., Southern Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n This case is
v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 598, 628-30 (2003). much different.
United Medical seeks to recover directly, under
the heading of "goodwill," an amount representing future and collateral profits that it alleges would have been realized, under other contracts, had its reputation not been damaged by bankruptcy. Its quantification of "goodwill" is no more than a Pl. Br. 26.
reduction of predicted earnings to present value.
Even assuming United Medical could prove the Government is solely responsible for its bankruptcy which is certainly not established on this record lost profits from other, unrelated contracts are unrecoverable as a matter of law. "[P]rofits lost
from the corporation's over-all business activities, because of its shortage of capital allegedly resulting from the Government's failure to pay the contract amounts when due, may not be recovered . . . ." Ramsey v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 426, 101
F. Supp. 353, 357 (1951); accord Olin Jones Sand Co. v. United
States, 225 Ct. Cl. 741, 743-44 (1980) (denying lost profits
18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 26 of 29
because "[e]ven if the Government had not delayed contract payments, there is no assurance plaintiffs would have received any additional contracts or work") .
United Medical's "goodwill" claim differs fundamentally from the lost profits claim in Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 302 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In that case, it was determined
that "Energy Capital's anticipated profits flowed directly from the [breached] agreement and not from 'other independent and collateral undertakings.'" Id. at 1328 (emphasis added) (quoting United Medical's asserted
Wells Fargo, 88 F.3d at 1022).
"goodwill" damages, by contrast, allegedly would have come, not directly from this contract, but from future business. As in
Wells Fargo and other cases cited above, the chain of causation is too speculative and attenuated to permit recovery. V. Summary United Medical's motion shows that its complaint raises triable breach claims but it establishes nothing more. There
are far too many unknown and disputed facts concerning United Medical's performance and billing practices to permit findings of liability for diversion or nonpayment or, assuming liability, fair estimates of damages. Whether and, if so, to what extent
the Government breached the contract and damaged United Medical must be determined upon a more fully developed record. 19 It would
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 27 of 29
be appropriate for the Court to narrow the issues prior to full discovery, however, by granting the Government's cross-motion regarding United Medical's "renegotiation" claim and its request for "goodwill" damages. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we respectfully request the Court to deny United Medical's motion for summary judgment in all respects and to grant the Government's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director
20
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 28 of 29
OF COUNSEL: KATHLEEN HALLAM Chief Trial Attorney Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
s/Kyle Chadwick KYLE CHADWICK Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Department of Justice Attn: Classification, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7562 Attorneys for Defendant
December 19, 2003
21
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 29 of 29
CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on December 19, 2003, the foregoing brief was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this
filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. the Court's system. Parties may access this filing through
s/Kyle Chadwick
22
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 17 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 18 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 19 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 20 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 21 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 22 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-2
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 23 of 23
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-3
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-4
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-5
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 17 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 18 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-6
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 19 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-7
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-7
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-7
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-7
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-7
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 5
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-8
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-9
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-10
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-11
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-12
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-13
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-14
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 13
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-15
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 12
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-16
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-17
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 9
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 17 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-18
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 18 of 18
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-19
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-20
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 14
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-21
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 10
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-22
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-23
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 8
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-24
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 1 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 2 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 3 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 4 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 5 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 6 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 7 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 8 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 9 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 10 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 11 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 12 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 13 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 14 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 15 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 16 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 17 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 18 of 19
Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA
Document 29-25
Filed 12/19/2003
Page 19 of 19
Free Cross Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal
| File Size: | 14,458.9 kB |
| Pages: | 312 |
| Date: | September 11, 2008 |
| File Format: | |
| State: | federal |
| Category: | District |
| Author: | unknown |
| Word Count: | 8,478 Words, 57,045 Characters |
| Page Size: | Letter (8 1/2" x 11") |
| URL |
https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/3690/29.pdf |
| Download Cross Motion - District Court of Federal Claims ( 14,458.9 kB) |
Preview Cross Motion - District Court of Federal Claims
Popular Searches
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms