explaining that a contract provision cannot “be interpreted to override the applicable regulations”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a contract provision cannot “be interpreted to override the applicable regulations”
- noting that “[t]he Contract Disputes Act applies to all contracts entered into after March 1, 1979.”
- sending the board’s rules and procedures under the CDA enabled the contractor to make a knowing election
- emphasizing the court’s finding in Fidelity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BALDWIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the conclusion that interest runs from the date Essex certified its claim. I would instead follow the express language of the interest provision and permit contractors to collect interest from the date their claim is submitted to the contracting officer. This approach would give Essex interest from February 22, 1980, the date its claim was submitted to the contracting officer.
The majority’s opinion amends the clear language of the interest provision and brushes aside Congressional intent. My reasons for disagreeing with the majority are set forth in my dissent on this same issue in Fidelity Construction Company v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379 (C.A.Fed. 1983).