Superior knowledge doctrine

Last updated

Superior knowledge doctrine is a principle in United States contract law. The doctrine states that the government must disclose to a contractor otherwise unavailable information that is vital to contract performance. [1] [2]

United States federal republic in North America

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States or America, is a country composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. At 3.8 million square miles, the United States is the world's third or fourth largest country by total area and is slightly smaller than the entire continent of Europe's 3.9 million square miles. With a population of over 327 million people, the U.S. is the third most populous country. The capital is Washington, D.C., and the largest city by population is New York City. Forty-eight states and the capital's federal district are contiguous in North America between Canada and Mexico. The State of Alaska is in the northwest corner of North America, bordered by Canada to the east and across the Bering Strait from Russia to the west. The State of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific Ocean. The U.S. territories are scattered about the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, stretching across nine official time zones. The extremely diverse geography, climate, and wildlife of the United States make it one of the world's 17 megadiverse countries.

An independent contractor is a natural person, business, or corporation that provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract or within a verbal agreement. Unlike an employee, an independent contractor does not work regularly for an employer but works as and when required, during which time they may be subject to law of agency. Independent contractors are usually paid on a freelance basis. Contractors often work through a limited company or franchise, which they themselves own, or may work through an umbrella company.

Contents

In order to recover under the superior knowledge doctrine, a contractor must prove each of the following elements:

  1. The contractor undertook to perform the contract without vital knowledge of a fact directly affecting performance, cost, or duration of the contract.
  2. The government was aware that the contractor had no knowledge of the information, and that the contractor had no reason to attempt to obtain this information.
  3. A contract specification that the government supplied to the contractor misled the contractor, or failed to put the contractor on notice to inquire more.
  4. The government failed to provide the relevant information. [1] [2] [3]

History

The case most often cited as initiating the superior knowledge doctrine is Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States (160 Ct. Cl. 437, 312 F.2d 774 (1963)). Helene Curtis Industries received an army contract for large quantities of a disinfectant chlorine powder that had never been mass-produced. The powder was to be used by U.S. troops in Korea to disinfect mess gear and fresh fruits and vegetables. The Army prepared directions for production of the new disinfectant powder. Based on the specifications, the contractor concluded that only a simple mixing technique was needed and submitted its bid.

Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. was an American cosmetics and beauty parlor products firm based in Chicago, Illinois. The company acquired a hair-coloring line through the acquisition of a competitor business. Later the retailer diversified into the field of personal care products, manufacturing Degree, among other items.

United States Army Land warfare branch of the United States Armed Forces

The United States Army (USA) is the land warfare service branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is one of the seven uniformed services of the United States, and is designated as the Army of the United States in the United States Constitution. As the oldest and most senior branch of the U.S. military in order of precedence, the modern U.S. Army has its roots in the Continental Army, which was formed to fight the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)—before the United States of America was established as a country. After the Revolutionary War, the Congress of the Confederation created the United States Army on 3 June 1784 to replace the disbanded Continental Army. The United States Army considers itself descended from the Continental Army, and dates its institutional inception from the origin of that armed force in 1775.

Disinfectant Antimicrobial agents that are applied to the surface of non-living objects to destroy microorganisms

Disinfectants are antimicrobial agents that are applied to the surface of non-living objects to destroy microorganisms that are living on the objects. Disinfection does not necessarily kill all microorganisms, especially resistant bacterial spores; it is less effective than sterilization, which is an extreme physical and/or chemical process that kills all types of life. Disinfectants are different from other antimicrobial agents such as antibiotics, which destroy microorganisms within the body, and antiseptics, which destroy microorganisms on living tissue. Disinfectants are also different from biocides — the latter are intended to destroy all forms of life, not just microorganisms. Disinfectants work by destroying the cell wall of microbes or interfering with their metabolism.

The Army already knew that a costly grinding operation would be required to produce the disinfectant powder. The Army also knew the contractor planned to simply mix the ingredients together, without performing any grinding. After the contract was awarded, the disinfectant failed to meet the specified solubility test. The company then investigated and discovered the powder needed to be ground. The contractor sued for the costs of finding that it needed to grind the powder, because the Army should have shared this superior knowledge. [1] [2]

Mill (grinding) device that breaks solid materials into smaller pieces

A mill is a device that breaks solid materials into smaller pieces by grinding, crushing, or cutting. Such comminution is an important unit operation in many processes. There are many different types of mills and many types of materials processed in them. Historically mills were powered by hand, working animal, wind (windmill) or water (watermill). Today they are usually powered by electricity.

Solubility Capacity of a designated solvent to hold a designated solute in homogeneous solution under specified conditions

Solubility is the property of a solid, liquid or gaseous chemical substance called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid or gaseous solvent. The solubility of a substance fundamentally depends on the physical and chemical properties of the solute and solvent as well as on temperature, pressure and presence of other chemicals of the solution. The extent of the solubility of a substance in a specific solvent is measured as the saturation concentration, where adding more solute does not increase the concentration of the solution and begins to precipitate the excess amount of solute.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today, such as the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Later cases

Later cases have established that:

  1. The government may have a greater obligation to provide information where the contractor is a small business enterprise since it is presumed that such contractors will have less knowledge. [4] [5]
  2. The Government has a duty to disclose its superior knowledge about the procurement history of the item and the fact that it had never been mass-produced without a waiver of certain specifications. The government's duty to disclose is heightened if the contractor is a small business. [4] [6]
  3. The superior knowledge doctrine was potentially applicable to even classified information regarding prior secret technology. Although disclosure of the details of the classified information may not be necessary or possible, the Government may have a duty to give a warning or make some other more general disclosure. [4] [7]

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Lerner; Brams (2001). Construction Claims Deskbook. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 278. ISBN   0-7355-2364-9.
  2. 1 2 3 Eshelman, J. William; Suzanne Langford Sanford (Spring 1993). "The Superior Knowledge Doctrine: An Update". Public Contract Law Journal. 22: 477. "The Helene Curtis doctrine of superior knowledge is now firmly embedded in the jurisprudence of government contracts."
  3. ↑ Petrochem serv inc. v United States, 837 F.2d 1076, 1079 (Fed Cir. 1988) (citing American Shipbuilding Co. V. United States, 654 F.2d 75, 79 (Cl. Ct. 1981)). See also GAF Corp. v. United States, 932 F.2d 947, 949 (Fed cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1071 (1992); Morris v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 733 (1995).
  4. 1 2 3 O'Donnell, Neil H.; Patricia A. Meagher (2007). "Terminations of Government Contracts IV. Excusable Delay as a Defense". Federal Publications LLC.
  5. ↑ See e.g. Numax Electronics, ASBCA 29080, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,280. But see Huff & Huff Serv. Corp., ASBCA 36039, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,584 (small business contractor not entitled to special deference). See also Defense Systems Corp., ASBCA 42939, et al., 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,721.
  6. ↑ Numax Electronics, ASBCA 29080, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,280
  7. ↑ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S., 27 Fed. Cl. 204 (1992)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Related Research Articles

In the law of the United States, attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is a "client's right privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is the step in the formation of an invention beyond the conception thereof. Reduction to practice may be either actual or constructive. The date of reduction to practice was critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding under the discontinued first-to-invent system as well as for swearing behind a reference under that system.

In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship.

Candy and Chocolate Confections, Federal Specification Z-C-2104, is a document that defines and outlines requirements for candy and chocolates that the United States federal government may use, and further defines the conditions under which a new type of candy may be found suitable for use by government agencies. Specification Z-C-2104 was first enacted in 1979 by the Federal Supply Service, part of the Federal Acquisition Service, which in turn is part of the General Services Administration.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

Pauline Newman American judge

Pauline Newman is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<i>Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co.</i>

Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, was a case decided in 1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning source code and the disclosure requirement for software patents.

An equitable adjustment, in government contracting, is a contract adjustment pursuant to a changes clause, to compensate the contractor expense incurred due to actions of the Government or to compensate the Government for contract reductions. An equitable adjustment includes an allowance for profit; clauses that provide for adjustments, excluding profit, are not considered "equitable adjustments."

CEMS, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 168 was a government contracting suit before the United States Court of Federal Claims. It deals with the requirements for a contractor to receive an equitable adjustment for work outside the contract.

A changes clause, in government contracting, is a required clause in United States government construction contracts.

<i>Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad</i>

Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It affirmed that public use or commercialization of an invention more than one year prior to the filing date will cost the inventor his patent rights. The inventor in this case was Allan M. Konrad, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory employee who devised and implemented a method for accessing and searching data objects stored on a remote computer. Netscape moved to invalidate Konrad's patents in U.S. district court immediately after Konrad filed a patent infringement suit against Netscape customers. The district court concluded that Konrad's patents were invalid because they did not meet the public-use and on-sale bar eligibility criteria of 35 U.S.C. § 102b. In particular, the district court found that Konrad (1) placed his invention in the public domain by demonstrating it to others without a confidentiality agreement and (2) tried to sell it to other legal entities, both more than one year before he filed for the patent. The appeals court, upon review, affirmed the district court decision for the same reasons.

<i>G. L. Christian & Associates v. United States</i>

G.L. Christian and associates v. United States is a 1963 United States Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) court case which has become known as the Christian Doctrine. The case held that standard clauses established by regulations may be considered as being in every Federal contract. Because the FAR is the law, and government contractors are presumed to be familiar with the FAR, a mandatory clause that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy will be incorporated into a Government contract by operation of law, even if the parties intentionally omitted it.

United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. The owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications.

Aboriginal title in the United States

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 563 U.S. 478 (2011), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State Secrets Privilege prevented the plaintiff from using the evidence it needed to protect itself from an expensive judgement.

The reverse doctrine of equivalents is a legal doctrine of United States patent law, according to which a device that appears to literally infringe a patent claim, by including elements or limitations that correspond to each element or limitation of the patent claim, nonetheless does not infringe the patent, because the accused device operates on a different principle. That is, "it performs the same or a similar function in a substantially different way." It has been said that "the purpose of the ‘reverse’ doctrine is to prevent unwarranted extension of the claims beyond a fair scope of the patentee’s invention."

Government patent use law is a statute codified at 28 USC § 1498(a) that is a "form of government immunity from patent claims." Section 1498 gives the federal government of the United States the "right to use patented inventions without permission, while paying the patent holder 'reasonable and entire compensation' which is usually "set at ten percent of sales or less". This statute "allows federal agencies and thirdparty government contractors to manufacture and/or use any invention without authorization from the patent holder. The federal government's rights are without an obligation for prior negotiation." Although Congress has the right to waive sovereign immunity for alleged patent infringement claims under the 'government patent use' statute, there are limits to the patent holder's recourse in the United States Court of Federal Claims.