DocketNumber: No. 618-81C
Citation Numbers: 5 Cl. Ct. 361
Judges: Spector
Filed Date: 6/21/1984
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
ORDER
The May 15, 1984 decision in the above-captioned case disposed of Cross-Motions
Long after the contracting officer’s decision terminating the contract by reason of default, he had issued a second decision asserting a claim in the amount of $942,-686.30 against plaintiffs for the alleged excess costs of reprocuring the remaining services to be performed under the defaulted contract. The contracting officer’s decision was annexed to defendant’s earlier-mentioned cross-motion for Summary Judgment. It was also incorporated into an Amended Answer which defendant was permitted to file. The Amended Answer asserts a counterclaim in this court for the excess costs claimed in that second contracting officer’s decision.
In the court’s aforementioned decision of May 15, 1984, no action was taken on the counterclaim because the record showed that the second contracting officer’s decision was issued after the effective date of the Contract Disputes Act,
Counsel have responded that there is no record of an administrative appeal of the second contracting officer’s decision, and both agree that proceedings on defendant’s counterclaim should continue in this court. The counterclaim is therefore deemed to be before the court on the basis of defendant’s Amended Answer as above-described, and plaintiffs’ reply thereto.
On May 26, 1982, the court (over plaintiffs’ objection) granted defendant's motion to suspend discovery proceedings. The motion was granted “without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to move to compel” discovery after disposition of the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, defendant shall respond to plaintiffs’ pending interrogatories within 30 days of the date hereof. Within 45 days, counsel shall submit a proposed discovery plan for consideration by the court.
. See Note 2, decision of May 15, 1984.
. See notes 31-2, decision herein May 15, 1984.
. See and cf. Tester Corp. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 368; 1 Cl.Ct. 370 (1982).
. Which have now been disposed of in the court’s decision of May 15, 1984.