Appeal of University of California, San Francisco

1996 WL 681971 (1996)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Appeal of University of California, San Francisco

United States Veterans Affairs Board of Contract Appeals
1996 WL 681971 (1996)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (plaintiff) entered into a scarce medical specialist services contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) to provide anesthesiology services at the VA Medical Center in San Francisco. UCSF’s contract with the VA did not contain a price reduction for defective cost or pricing data clause (price reduction clause); however, the inclusion of a price reduction clause was required by the federal Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA). UCSF submitted cost and pricing documentation to the VA that included substantial administrative research costs and failed to properly itemize the costs comprising the total contract price. The contract then received several 90-day renewals, resulting in UCSF receiving compensation amounting to approximately 27 percent more than the original contract price. The VA Inspector General audited UCSF’s contract with the VA and found that the VA had overpaid UCSF because (1) the VA was not permitted to cover administrative research costs; and (2) UCSF failed to provide proper cost and pricing documentation to support the contract price. The VA petitioned to recover the overpayment. UCSF appealed the claim to the Veterans Affairs Board of Contract Appeals (VABCA) and moved for summary judgment, arguing that (a) UCSF’s contract with the VA did not include a price reduction clause; and (2) the Christian doctrine, which would incorporate the price reduction clause as a matter of law, was inapplicable because the inclusion of a price reduction clause was discretionary and not mandatory. The government countered, arguing that TINA mandated the inclusion of a price reduction clause.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McMichael, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership