Franklin Pavkov Construction Company v. Roche

279 F.3d 989 (2002)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Franklin Pavkov Construction Company v. Roche

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
279 F.3d 989 (2002)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Franklin Pavkov Construction Company (FPC) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with the United States Air Force (government) (defendant) to install stairs in Air Force dormitory buildings. Under the contract, the government was to supply government-furnished property (GFP) consisting of a range of stair parts. The contract did not specify when, how, or where the GFP must be delivered. The government delivered the GFP to a fenced area close to the work site and met with FPC to review and inventory the delivery. FPC left the meeting voluntarily before completing the inventory. FPC did not subsequently complete the inventory. Six months into FPC’s one-year installation contract, FPC notified the government that certain required items were missing from the delivered GFP. FPC completed the contract work by purchasing or constructing the necessary items. After work was complete, FPC submitted a certified claim to the government’s contracting officer for additional costs and adjustments, alleging that the government was responsible for FPC’s increased costs because (1) the GFP delivery was inadequate and incomplete, forcing FPC to incur additional procurement and construction costs; and (2) the government never fully discharged its delivery duties because it did not completely inventory the GFP delivery with FPC. The contacting officer denied the claim. FPC appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board). The Board confirmed the denial, holding that (a) FPC had an implied duty to inspect the GFP for completeness and suitability upon delivery; and (2) FPC’s notice was untimely. FPC appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, 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 735,000 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 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 735,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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