Krygoski Construction Company, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
94 F.3d 1537 (1996)
Facts
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (government) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Krygoski Construction Company, Inc. (Krygoski) (defendant) to demolish an abandoned air field and missile site in Michigan. Ten percent of the contract work involved asbestos removal and remediation. Krygoski conducted a pre-demolition site survey and discovered that there was significant additional asbestos contamination. Krygoski proposed to remove the additional asbestos for an additional $320,000 on top of the original approximately $415,000 contract price. The government’s contracting officer (CO) determined that the additional asbestos removal amounted to a material change in the contract terms because it would increase the total contract cost by over 33 percent. Accordingly, the CO terminated the contract for the government’s convenience and reprocured the contract with the additional asbestos removal included. Krygoski bid for, but was not awarded, the reprocured contract. Krygoski sued the government in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the government breached its contract with Krygoski. The district court awarded Krygoski approximately $1.4 million in breach-of-contract damages holding that, pursuant to the Torncello test, there was not a sufficient change-in-circumstances to justify the termination. The government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
