David P. Hendel in Law360: Weber Trucking v. USPS Ruling May Aid Recovery Under Fixed-Price Service Contracts

Law360 recently published an article authored by Culhane Meadows’ Washington, D.C. partner, David P. Hendel, which discusses a recent opinion from Weber Trucking LLC v. U.S. Postal Service having broad implications for government contractors and fixed-price service contracts.

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

Contractors who toil under a fixed-price service contract now have a new claim theory they can use to recover unexpectedly high performance costs.

A recent opinion by the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals in Weber Trucking LLC v. U.S. Postal Service has breathed new life into the theory of defective specifications, holding that the doctrine applies to service contracts.[1] The case and its application could have broad implications for government contractors.

Weber Trucking
Weber Trucking held a fixed-price contract with the Postal Service to sort and “carry all mail tendered” along a designated route in Las Vegas, Nevada. The solicitation and resulting contract set out estimated hours and mileage but contained disclaimers as to their accuracy.

The contract stated that the estimated annual miles were given only as information, and instructed the supplier to determine the actual miles. Similarly, the solicitation stated that the estimated annual hours were approximately the hours needed, and that the contractor must determine the actual hours.

No estimate was provided for the amount of mail that would be tendered. The Postal Service tendered far more mail than could be delivered within the time allotted in the contract’s schedule.

To cope with the overflow of mail, the contractor hired an additional carrier and added a second vehicle. When the Postal Service provided only a slight increase based on the contract’s adjustment formula, Weber Trucking filed a claim seeking to recover all of its additional performance costs.

Weber’s claim was sustained, with the three-judge panel splitting on their rationale for the holding. The presiding judge, Peter F. Pontzer, upheld Weber Trucking’s claim based on the legal theories of defective specifications and superior knowledge.[2]

Download PDF of this article HERE


The foregoing content is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Federal, state, and local laws can change rapidly and, therefore, this content may become obsolete or outdated. Please consult with an attorney of your choice to ensure you obtain the most current and accurate counsel about your particular situation.


About Culhane Meadows – Big Law for the New Economy®
The largest woman-owned national full-service business law firm in the U.S., Culhane Meadows fields over 70 partners in eleven major markets across the country. Uniquely structured, the firm’s Disruptive Law® business model gives attorneys greater work-life flexibility while delivering outstanding, partner-level legal services to major corporations and emerging companies across industry sectors more efficiently and cost-effectively than conventional law firms. Clients enjoy exceptional and highly-efficient legal services provided exclusively by partner-level attorneys with significant experience and training from large law firms or in-house legal departments of respected corporations. U.S. News & World Report has named Culhane Meadows among the country’s “Best Law Firms” in its 2014 through 2022 rankings and many of the firm’s partners are regularly recognized in Chambers, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell Peer Reviews.

*Culhane Meadows is ranked by U.S. News/Best Law Firms in Technology Law, Bankruptcy/Reorganization Law, and Information Technology Law. This website and the communications herein may be considered attorney advertising. Previous results are not a guarantee of future outcome. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein is not intended to create an attorney-client or similar relationship. Until you establish such a relationship and receive an engagement letter, you have not hired a Culhane Meadows attorney nor become a client of the firm. Whether you are a new or existing client of the firm, Culhane Meadows must determine that there is no conflict of interest and that it is willing and otherwise able to accept the new engagement before representing you on a new matter. Only if and after Culhane Meadows has informed you it is willing and able to accept your new matter should you send the firm any information or documents that you consider private or confidential. Such information will not be treated as private, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure until Culhane Meadows has communicated in writing that it is willing and able to accept your new matter and provide you with legal counsel. Whether you need legal services and which lawyer or law firm you select are important decisions that should not be based on this website alone.