We persuaded the government that its interpretation of the contract was incorrect so our client would be paid funds previously withheld by the government.
Our client had a contract with the US Navy to provide medical coding services. The contract required our client to provide one-month units of such coding services for a fixed price each month. During several months our client had fewer employees than the contract specified at several sites, although our client still performed all coding requirements at each site. Several months later the Navy deducted amounts from our client’s invoices, asserting that our client wasn’t entitled to full payment for those months because it wasn’t fully staffed. Our client filed a claim to recover the amounts deducted by the Navy. After the Navy denied the claim, we were retained and filed suit at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
We argued that the units of service were “months,” not “man-hours,” and that our client had provided the services as required by the contract, all of which were accepted by the Navy.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denied. The parties then engaged in settlement discussions, resulting in payment to our client of the funds previously withheld by the Navy.
