Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-1746
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cv-00080-jlk-mfu)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the responsibility
for costs exceeding the contract price for work done on three
hydroelectric generating units, which supply power to the City
of Danville, Virginia (the City).
Ltd. (PEC) and the City entered into a contract under which
PEC
would
units.
disassemble,
rewind,
refurbish,
and
reassemble
the
The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, and PEC now
appeals on its quantum meruit claim.
an
express,
valid
contract
that
prescribes
change
order
We therefore
I.
In March 2003, the City of Danville issued an Invitation
for Bids (IFB) on a project to disassemble, rewind, refurbish,
and reassemble three hydroelectric units (Units 1, 2, and 3),
which supply power to the City as part of the Pinnacles Hydro
Dam on the Dan River.
dam in April 2003 and allowed six potential bidders to tour and
inspect the facility, ask questions, and seek modifications to
the proposed contract.
City
in
consisted
ultimately
August
of,
J.A. 282.
awarded
2003.
among
The
other
the
contract
parties
things,
to
PEC
fixed-price
four-page
for
contract
agreement
describing the work to be done, the Citys IFB, and the City of
Danville
Procurement
Code.
These
documents
outlined
several
Article 7
shall
bear
all
losses
resulting
from
the
amount
or
J.A.
206.
This
25%
cap
on
price
increases
is
mandated
by
began
working
on
the
project
in
October
2003.
cost
adjustments
for
work
beyond
the
scope
of
the
J.A. 436.
(emphasis
added),
the
proposal
included
suggested
testing
schedule and stated that the price for such a test would be
Id. at 436-37.
$17,500.
after
performing
the
Id. at 43940.
heat
run
test
and
an
uprate
that
these
J.A. 44243.
changes
will
require
additional
actions
the
[required]
contract
between
actions;
Pennsylvania
and
Electric
request[ed]
Coil
and
that
The
City
the
of
associated costs.
J.A. 447.
determined
that
certain
parts
required
list
of
prices
$23,065.
for
these
repairs
that
the
which
totaled
J.A.
454.
Work
on
Unit
1,
including
the
reassembly
and
PECs
contract.
alignment
work
fell
under
the
scope
of
the
correspondence
the
parties
and
through
documentation
the
spring
of
of
The record
conversations
2005,
discussing
City
engineer,
noted
discussed
the
alignment
supervisor
had
pointed
that
and
out
PEC
and
bearings
that
the
City
and
employees
that
contract
PECs
does
not
had
field
have
Id.
J.A. 477.
contains a June 24, 2005 e-mail from David Summers, another City
engineer,
memorializing
phone
conversation
J.A. 522-23.
between
PEC
In the e-mail,
Id. at 522.
supervisor]
or
requested
Change
Order
or
otherwise
issue existed.
Id.
out
of
stressing
[make]
scope.
to
any
Brad
Id.
Child
additional
at
523.
that
the
payment
Significantly,
City
since
is
no
not
he
noted
obligated
change
order
to
was
not
issue
proposed changes.
2005,
through
Purchase
Order
to
authorize
any
The City
of
these
written
by
Gary
Via,
was
written
J.A.
641.
During
the
course
of
the
parties
discussions
by
February
2005,
while
on
Units
and
were
restarted
that
month.
On
July
29,
2005,
PEC
$110,387
for
J.A. 498501.
Unit
2,
and
$107,875
for
Unit
3. 2
Of
the
of
contract
and
quantum
meruit.
The
district
court
II.
We review de novo the district courts grant of summary
judgment.
III.
The
district
court
exercised
diversity
jurisdiction
over
A federal court
204 U.S. 64, 79 (1938); see also Volvo Const. Equip. N. Am.,
Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., Inc., 386 F.3d 581, 599600 (4th Cir.
2004).
Virginia
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
when
one
Marine
Devt Corp. v. Rodak, 300 S.E.2d 763, 765 (Va. 1983) (quoting
Hendrickson v. Meredith, 170 S.E. 602, 604 (1933)).
It is a
general rule of law that he who gains the labor of another must
make reasonable compensation for the same.
and citation omitted).
also
held
that
Id. (punctuation
where
there
is
an
express
and
enforceable
v.
Bd.
of
County
Supervisors
of
Albemarle
County,
10
S.E.2d
524,
531
(Va.
1965),
the
City
responds
that
the
because
the
contract
contains
provision
requiring
the
judgment
of
the
district
11
court.
In
Main,
the
generally
plaintiff
in
upheld.
Main
142
S.E.2d
entered
into
at
a
529.
Like
PEC,
construction
the
contract,
such
extra
work,
and
not
having
followed
the
prescribed
Id. at 53031.
regarding the heat test run on Unit 1 and the ensuing proposed
design
changes
demonstrate
that
it
knew
of
and
was
able
to
we
are
not
unsympathetic
to
the
fact
that
our
Virginia law
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.
13