John C. Grimberg Company, Inc v. United States (869 F. 2d. (1989) In the case particulars, the appellant in the case, John C. Grimberg Company was denied of the exercise of the equitable adjustment provision with their contract with the Bethesda Naval Center of the United States Navy (John C. Grimberg Company, Inc v. United States (869 F. 2d. (1989). In December of 1983, the Navy entertained bids for some building work at the facility (Grimberg, 1989).
On March 1984, Grimberg was awarded a contract by the Bethesda Center for construction work in the facility (Grimberg, 1989). Grimberg then awarded the contract to source the panels needed in the work to a local company, Arban and Carosi (Grimberg, 1989). Carosi failed to deliver the panels to Grimberg, forcing the company to source the panels from a foreign source, Beer Precast Concrete Ltd. , a Canadian firm (Grimberg, 1989). The Navy balked at the contract of Grimberg since the sourcing of the panels violated provisions of the 1982 Buy American Act (Grimberg, 1989).
The company (Grimberg) had requested that they be granted an exemption to the Act, but the Navy declined their request (Grimberg, 1989). As such, the Armed Forces Board of Contract Appeals denied two motions for reconsiderations both laid by Grimberg against the Navy (Grimberg, 1989). Grimberg anchored its claims against the Navy on the latter’s refusal to allow the exception so that they can accept the materials from Canada (Grimberg, 1989).
Under the ambit of the American Act, the panels must be sourced from domestic sources, but if the domestic sources and the foreign solicitation are priced so differently that the latter produces a favorable situation for the state, then exemptions can be granted (Grimberg, 1989). On remand, the Veterans Administration Contract Appeals Board stated that an equitable price adjustment if the request would not cause any additional cost to the government (Grimberg, 1989).
In the opinion of the Veterans Board, the contractor’s acceptance of the lower priced bids would have benefited the government (Grimberg, 1989). In the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the ASBCA abused its discretion in the denial of the request waiver (Grimberg, 1989). They determined that under the provisions of the contract, Grimberg was entitled to exercise that provision in the contract; it reversed the decision of the ABSCA for a new proceeding (Grimberg, 1989). References Client Uploaded File.