Appeal of Covco Hawaii Corporation
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Exchange Act Release No. 31,554 (Dec. 3, 1992)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Covco Hawaii Corporation (Covco) (plaintiff) entered into a construction contract with the United States Army Support Command, Hawaii Installation Club System (government) (defendant), a Department of the Army nonappropriated fund instrumentality. Under the contract, Covco was required to perform excavation work, including unspecified rock excavation work. The excavation area was in Hawaii, an area entirely formed by volcanic processes. After encountering a solid lava rock ledge, Covco petitioned the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board), arguing that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment under the Differing Site Conditions clause of its contract with the government because (1) the profile drawings in the contract implied that the excavation area contained soil, not rock; (2) solid lava rock ledges were not typically found during excavations to similar depths; and (3) the government had superior knowledge about the subsurface site conditions because it had previously built a pool in the same area but the government failed to disclose that knowledge to Covco. Even though Covco’s contract was a type of nonappropriated funds contract not governed by the Contract Disputes Act, the disputes clause in Covco’s contract granted jurisdiction to the Board. Without the disputes clause, Covco’s contract would have been outside the Board’s jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ting, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.