Free Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00218-NBF

Document 18

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-218C (Judge Firestone)

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For its answer to the complaint, defendant admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. The allegation of jurisdiction contained in the paragraph preceding paragraph 1 constitutes a

conclusion of law to which no answer is required; to the extent it may be deemed an allegation of fact, it is denied. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 to the extent supported by the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1. 2. Admits the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 2 to the extent supported

by the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegation contained in paragraph 2. Denies the second sentence of paragraph 2; avers that Exhibit 1 to the complaint is an annotated copy rather than a true and correct copy of the contract. 3. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 3 to the extent supported

by the contract cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 3. The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 3 constitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Defendant avers that the Disputes Clause is 52.233-1, not 52-233-1.

Case 1:07-cv-00218-NBF

Document 18

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 2 of 5

4.

Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 to the extent supported by the subcontract

cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4. 5. Denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 5. Admits the allegation contained

in the second sentence of paragraph 5 that the Corps made changes to the contract; otherwise denies the allegation contained in the second sentence of paragraph 5. Admits the allegation contained in the third sentence of paragraph 5. Denies the allegation contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 5. Admits the allegations contained in the fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences of paragraph 5, except for the allegations contained in footnote 2. Denies the allegations contained in footnote 2 to paragraph 5. 6. Admits the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of paragraph 6. Denies

the allegation contained in the third sentence of paragraph 6. Denies the allegation in the fourth sentence of paragraph 6 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth. 7. Denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 7; avers that the amount

plaintiff claimed was $2,323,326.00. Denies the allegation contained in the second sentence of paragraph 2; avers that Exhibit 3 is incomplete. Admits the allegations contained in the third and fourth sentences of paragraph 7. Defendant avers that the Disputes Clause is 52.233-1, not 52-233-1. 8. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8 to the extent supported

by the contracting officer's final decision cited, which is the best evidence of its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8. The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 8 constitute conclusions of law to which no -2-

Case 1:07-cv-00218-NBF

Document 18

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 3 of 5

answer is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 9. Denies.

10. Denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 10 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. Denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 10. Admits the third sentence of paragraph 10. 11. Denies. 12. Denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief set forth in the prayer for relief immediately following paragraph 11, or to any relief whatsoever. 13. Denies each and every allegation not previously admitted or otherwise qualified. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff has been paid $2,457,845.15 for work related to P00007 and P00016 change orders. The amount requested should be reduced by this amount. WHEREFORE, defendant requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor, order that the complaint be dismissed, and grant defendant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director

Case 1:07-cv-00218-NBF

Document 18

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 4 of 5

Of Counsel: ELIZABETH F. OPPENHEIMER Counsel United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District 701 San Marco Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207-8175 Tel: (904) 232-1166

s/ ARMANDO A. RODRIGUEZ-FEO Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L St., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 307-3390 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

September ___, 2007

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00218-NBF

Document 18

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on this

day of September, 2007, a copy of foregoing

"DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE" 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ Armando Rodriguez-Feo