1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA Holds That Contractor Entitled to Recover Costs of Preparing to Perform, When CO Terminated Contract Before Notice to Proceed

ASBCA Holds That Contractor Entitled to Recover Costs of Preparing to Perform, When CO Terminated Contract Before Notice to Proceed

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.27.17

In Appeal of Pro-Built Construction Firm (ASBCA No. 59278), the Board found that the contractor was entitled to recover nearly $290,000, even though Pro-Built never actually performed the contract. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted with Pro-Built to construct a police station in Afghanistan, but eight months later, terminated the contract for convenience, before the USACE ever issued a notice to proceed with construction to Pro-Built. After the USACE determined Pro-Built was entitled to $48,972 in reimbursable costs, Pro-Built appealed to the Board, arguing it was also entitled to direct labor and subcontractor costs as well as lost profit. In rejecting the USACE’s argument that it was unreasonable to incur “standby” costs prior to the NTP, the Board found that Pro-Built was entitled to three months of these costs and lost profit, holding that it was reasonable for Pro-Built to have staff on standby for three – not eight – months, and Pro-Built properly determined it was in its best interest to retain personnel and subcontractors in advance of construction due to the labor market and security situation in Afghanistan.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....