John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. v. United States

869 F.2d 1475 (1989)

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

John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
869 F.2d 1475 (1989)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The United States Navy (defendant) solicited bids for a construction contract at a naval center in Maryland. The contract work involved the fabrication and installation of exterior precast concrete wall panels. John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. (Grimberg) (plaintiff) submitted a bid and was awarded the contract. Before Grimberg submitted its bid, Grimberg obtained a quote for the fabrication and installation of the required concrete panels from Arban & Carosi (A&C), a domestic subcontractor, for $245,000, $165,000 of which was for materials. Grimberg’s successful bid was based on A&C’s quote. After obtaining the contract award, Grimberg called A&C multiple times but was unable to secure a subcontract with A&C. Grimberg never attempted written communication with A&C. After failing to secure a subcontract with A&C, Grimberg solicited quotes from two other domestic subcontractors, both of which were substantially higher than A&C’s quote. Grimberg then entered into a subcontract with Beer Precast Concrete, Limited (BPC), a Canadian company, for $237,000, $120,000 of which was for materials. However, the Navy rejected BPC’s panels, stating that using BPC, a Canadian fabricator, would violate the Buy-American Act (BAA). Grimberg requested a BAA waiver and was denied. Grimberg ultimately obtained the panels from a domestic supplier for a final materials cost of $200,000. Grimberg submitted a request for a post-award BAA waiver and equitable adjustment. The Navy denied Grimberg’s request. On appeal, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) affirmed the denial, holding that Grimberg was not entitled to a BAA waiver because the cost of fabricating and installing the concrete panels using domestic suppliers was not unreasonable. Grimberg appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bissell, J.)

Dissent (Bennett, 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 741,000 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 741,000 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 741,000 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