Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01719/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 134
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

ANCHORAGE, A MUNICIPAL CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2022-1719

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:14-cv-00166-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J. 

Damich.

______________________

Decided: December 16, 2024

______________________

JASON N. SMITH, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by EDWARD 

VICTOR ARNOLD, BENNETT DAVID GREENBERG; DONALD 

FEATHERSTUN, San Francisco, CA; ANNE HELZER, ROBERT 

OWENS, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, AK.

 EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, VINCENT DE PAUL 

PHILLIPS, JR., STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, DANIEL 

HOFFMAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, KARA WESTERCAMP.

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 1 Filed: 12/16/2024
2 ANCHORAGE v. US

______________________

Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit 

Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge

The United States appeals a decision from the United 

States Court of Federal Claims holding that the United 

States breached two contracts with the municipality of 

Anchorage to improve the Port of Alaska. Anchorage and 

the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

in 2003 and a Memorandum of Agreement in 2011 to 

upgrade and expand the Port of Alaska. The Court of 

Federal Claims held that the government breached the 

2003 agreement by not delivering a defect-free port and 

breached the 2011 agreement by settling subcontractor 

claims without conferring with Anchorage.

Because the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding did 

not require the United States to deliver a defect-free port, 

we vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ decision as it relates 

to the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding and remand

for further proceedings as described below. We affirm the 

Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the United 

States breached the 2011 Memorandum of Agreement by 

settling subcontractor claims without conferring with 

Anchorage, as well as the court’s award of damages to 

Anchorage for the United States’ breach of the 2011 

Memorandum of Agreement.

I

A

The Port of Alaska (Port), formerly the Port of 

Anchorage, is a critical national seaport and the “kingpin 

in Alaska’s corridor of commerce.” J.A. 5698. An estimated 

90% of the merchandise goods for 85% of Alaska’s 

populated areas pass through the Port annually.

Additionally, jet fuel for military operations at Joint Base 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 2 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 3

Elmendorf-Richardson and for the Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International Airport arrives via the Port.

Prior to 2003, “[t]he Municipality of Anchorage

determined that the facilities at the Port . . . were 

deteriorating and outdated.” J.A. 3. Anchorage envisioned 

a multi-year project that would help increase the Port’s 

ability to serve Anchorage, the State of Alaska, commercial 

tenants, and the United States military. “Not having the 

expertise to undertake the [p]roject on its own, [Anchorage]

sought a party to provide the requisite technical expertise.”

Id. After considering the private sector, Anchorage

contracted with the Maritime Administration (MARAD), 

within the U.S. Department of Transportation “to embark 

on a port infrastructure development program.” Id.

Anchorage selected MARAD for its “purported expertise in 

designing, constructing, and overseeing port development 

projects and its authority to administer federal and nonfederal share funds.” Compl. at ¶ 17, Anchorage v. United 

States, Case No. 1:14-cv-00166 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28, 2014), 

ECF No. 1.

Anchorage and MARAD executed two contracts over 

the life of the project. The first contract was a 

Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2003 (2003 

Memorandum), which “described project administration, 

funding, and the obligations of the parties.” J.A. 3.

The express terms of the 2003 Memorandum required 

Anchorage to “[p]rovide overall program requirements and 

direction of Port Expansion to MARAD.” J.A. 16044. The 

2003 Memorandum also specified, with regard to the level 

of program control to be exerted by Anchorage, that 

Anchorage had the responsibility to “[r]eview all plans, 

specifications, and status reports submitted by the primary 

contractor and its subcontractors before submission to 

MARAD.” J.A. 16045. “[Anchorage] was also responsible 

for certifying completion and acceptance of the work.” J.A. 

3. Specifically, Anchorage was required to certify that a

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 3 Filed: 12/16/2024
4 ANCHORAGE v. US

contractor’s work was acceptable and, if so, would issue a

certificate of completion to MARAD. Only with the 

completed certificate of completion could MARAD accept 

the work and pay the contractor. 

The 2003 Memorandum also outlined MARAD’s 

responsibilities, which included “[c]oordinat[ing] with 

other Federal agencies that receive annual Congressional 

appropriations for Port Expansion” to increase funding for 

the project. J.A. 16045. Additionally, MARAD was 

responsible for executing all financial documents, 

accepting transfers of non-federal funds, and to “[o]bligate 

and disburse funding for Port Expansion project oversight, 

program management, study, environmental analysis, 

engineering, design, construction, or rehabilitation 

pursuant to Port Expansion requirements consistent with 

contract requirements.” J.A. 16046. Either party could 

terminate the 2003 Memorandum by providing ninety 

days’ notice to the other party. 

To complete the project, MARAD contracted with 

Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation (ICRC) in 

2003 (the MARAD-ICRC contract). ICRC, in turn, was to 

“[sub]contract[] with other design/engineering firms and 

contractors to complete various aspects of the work.”

Compl. at ¶ 31, Anchorage, Case No. 1:14-cv-00166 (Feb. 

28, 2014), ECF No. 1. The contract between MARAD and

ICRC “included contract clauses which provided [MARAD]

the right to require ICRC to correct defective work without 

charge.” Id. at ¶ 35.

Problems with the project were discovered during a 

third-party inspection in 2010, when “large-scale damage 

was found in the installed sheet piles”, which protect an 

excavated area from earth and groundwater. J.A. 3. While 

ICRC and its subcontractors performed the work,

Anchorage ultimately blamed the project issues on 

MARAD, alleging that MARAD failed to “develop[] [p]roject 

management or inspection protocols” over ICRC and its 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 4 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 5

subcontractors, and “abdicated its responsibilities” to 

oversee the project. Compl. at ¶¶ 61–65, Anchorage, Case 

No. 1:14-cv-00166 (Feb. 28, 2014), ECF No. 1. The damage 

resulted in “large sections of the [Port] being unsuitable for 

use.” J.A. 3 The damage was the “impetus for [Anchorage 

and MARAD] entering into a second agreement in 2011.”

J.A. 3.

The 2011 Memorandum of Agreement (2011 

Memorandum), which supplemented the 2003

Memorandum, “redefined the roles and responsibilities of 

Anchorage and [MARAD], outlined authorities, and 

assured accountability for the [p]roject” through joint 

oversight by both parties. J.A. 3–4. “It created a Port 

Oversight and Management Organization [] to ‘provide 

overall executive leadership, vision, policy, strategic 

objectives, and priorities for the project.’” Id. (internal 

citations omitted). The Port Oversight and Management 

Organization consisted “of a committee of decision makers 

from both Anchorage and MARAD, who would hold 

frequent meetings to address issues related to the Port 

construction.” J.A. 16. The 2011 Memorandum also 

removed Anchorage’s prior “responsibility to provide 

program requirements and direction for the [p]roject and 

instead gave [the Port Oversight and Management 

Organization] the responsibility to ‘[m]anage the scope, 

schedule, and budget of the [p]roject on a day-to-day 

basis.’” J.A. 4 (internal citations omitted).

That same year, another issue arose when Quality 

Asphalt Paving, Inc. and MKB Constructors—two 

subcontractors hired by ICRC—sought to file a claim 

against MARAD for work performed that they alleged was

not reimbursed. As the prime contractor, ICRC certified the

validity of the claim (known as a certified pass-through 

claim) and presented it to MARAD. MARAD denied the

certified pass-through claim from ICRC and, as a result,

ICRC brought three claims under the Contract Disputes 

Act of 1978 to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 5 Filed: 12/16/2024
6 ANCHORAGE v. US

(CBCA). Without consulting Anchorage, MARAD settled 

the claims with ICRC in 2012, with MARAD paying ICRC 

$11,279,059. On March 8, 2013, Anchorage filed its own 

lawsuit against ICRC, Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc., and 

MKB Constructors, among others, for deficient work on the 

project. “[Anchorage] recovered approximately $19.35 

million through settlements with all parties in that suit.”

J.A. 14518.

B

In 2014, Anchorage filed suit against the United States 

in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that MARAD had 

breached the 2003 Memorandum and the 2011 

Memorandum. Compl., Anchorage, Case No. 1:14-cv-00166

(Feb. 28, 2014), ECF No. 1. On December 9, 2021, after 

trial, the court issued a decision, holding that MARAD had 

breached express duties under the plain text of the 2003 

Memorandum and the 2011 Memorandum while stating 

that it would issue a separate damages opinion. J.A. 35–

62.

In the opinion, the trial court held that the 2003 

Memorandum contained an unambiguous duty for MARAD 

to deliver a defect-free port structure to Anchorage. It 

further held that MARAD had breached this duty by failing 

to deliver to Anchorage a completed, defect-free project. 

The trial court also held that MARAD had breached duties 

under the 2003 Memorandum by failing to exercise its 

contractual rights and remedies against ICRC under the 

MARAD-ICRC contract. Finally, the trial court held that, 

in the 2011 Memorandum, MARAD had promised to 

pursue and defend claims on Anchorage’s behalf, which 

MARAD breached by settling ICRC’s claims without 

Anchorage’s input. 

During trial, the United States sought to show that 

Anchorage was responsible for the managerial decision to 

contract with ICRC. But the court deemed Anchorage’s 

decision-making on the project irrelevant because, in its 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 6 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 7

view, “MARAD held the legal right [under the 2003 

Memorandum] to refuse” Anchorage’s directions, and 

MARAD’s choice to accommodate Anchorage’s instructions 

was “not the requirement under the 2003 [Memorandum].” 

J.A. 52. 

The trial court issued a separate opinion addressing 

damages on February 24, 2022. Anchorage v. United 

States, No. 14-166C, 2022 WL 577669 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 24, 

2022). In the opinion, the court found that Anchorage had 

adequately proven its entitlement to $367,446,809 in 

expectation damages. The court’s damages calculation 

contained two parts. First, the court determined that 

Anchorage had proven its entitlement to $180,839,809, 

representing the value of the structure Anchorage expected 

but did not receive. Included in this amount was 

$11,279,059, the amount MARAD paid to ICRC out of 

project funds as part of the CBCA litigation settlement.

The court did not explain how this sum was related to the 

value of the port structure Anchorage claimed. The 

expectation damages also encompassed a deduction for the 

$19,350,000 in funds Anchorage recovered through its 

settlements with ICRC and other contracts. Second, the 

court determined that Anchorage had proven its 

entitlement to $186,607,000 in costs Anchorage anticipates 

it will have to pay to remediate the defects in the existing 

sheet pile structure. The United States filed a timely notice 

of appeal to our court on April 22, 2022. We possess 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review final 

decisions and judgments of the Court of Federal Claims.

II

“We review the Court of Federal Claims’ legal 

conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” 

Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 896 F.3d 1299, 1306 

(Fed. Cir. 2018). Contract interpretation is a question of 

law that we review de novo. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United 

States, 536 F.3d 1282, 1284–85 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 7 Filed: 12/16/2024
8 ANCHORAGE v. US

Winstar Corp. v. United States, 64 F.3d 1531, 1540 

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 518 U.S. 839 (1996)).

III

When interpreting a contract, we “begin[] with the 

language of the written agreement.” Bell/Heery v. United 

States, 739 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotation 

omitted). We may also look to contemporaneous evidence of 

the parties’ understanding to confirm the plain meaning of 

the contract. TEG-Paradigm Env’t, Inc. v. United States, 

465 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Coast Fed. 

Bank FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (en banc)). We interpret the contract in a way that 

gives reasonable meaning to all parts of the contract and 

avoids a conflict among the provisions. NOAA Maryland, 

LLC v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs. Admin., 997 F.3d 1159, 1166 

(Fed. Cir. 2021). Further, we cannot insert words into the 

contract that the parties never agreed to. George Hyman 

Const. Co. v. United States, 832 F.2d 574, 581 (Fed. Cir. 

1987). 

The first question before us is whether the 2003 

Memorandum required the United States to provide 

Anchorage with a defect-free port. The second question is 

whether the United States breached the 2011 

Memorandum by settling ICRC’s claims against the United 

States without conferring with Anchorage. We address 

each in turn.

A

Our predecessor, the Court of Claims, identified some 

of the essential “terms normally needed for a construction 

contract . . . [such as] time period, . . . specifications as to 

form and height, . . . [and] the methods or procedures to be 

followed.” Nat’l By-Prods., Inc. v. United States, 405 F.2d 

1256, 1266 (Ct. Cl. 1969); see also First Hartford Corp. 

Pension Plan & Tr. v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1290 

n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing S. Corp. v. United States, 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 8 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 9

690 F.2d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (en banc) (explaining 

that the Court of Federal Claims and our court are both 

“bound by the decisions of the Court of Claims”)). While the 

absence of some standard construction terms could be 

remedied by implying reasonable terms, “the lack of any

terms which would ordinarily be present in such a contract 

is persuasive that this was not a contract to construct a 

[structure] or to assure that one would be built.” Nat’l ByProds., 405 F.2d at 1266 n.9 (emphasis added).

Turning to the 2003 Memorandum, we find no 

language that could be read to create a duty for MARAD to 

deliver any completed item of construction. Nothing states 

what specifically is to be built, where, or with what 

dimensions. Nothing identifies a deadline for delivery, or 

any binding timeline for any part of the project. Nothing 

identifies the cost for what MARAD is ostensibly delivering 

to Anchorage. Consistent with the 2003 Memorandum’s 

plain language, Cheryl Coppe, a former Anchorage official 

and one of the primary drafters of the 2003 Memorandum, 

J.A. 39, testified that the 2003 Memorandum did not define 

any particular project structure to be built or any price, and 

that the decision of what was going to be built had not yet 

been made when the 2003 Memorandum was executed. 

J.A. 15063 (Trial Tr. 788:2–19 (Coppe)). The absence of any 

of these terms demonstrates that MARAD did not 

contractually promise to construct a port structure or to 

assure that one would be built through the 2003 

Memorandum. 

Anchorage’s assertion that MARAD was required to 

deliver a defect-free port disregards the 2003 

Memorandum’s text. Although Anchorage directs us to 

certain provisions in the 2003 Memorandum, Anchorage

repeatedly relies on paraphrases of those provisions, 

avoiding full quotes of the 2003 Memorandum’s text. First, 

Anchorage cites to sections IV.7. and V.7. of the 2003 

Memorandum, Appellee’s Br. 31–33, which state in full: 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 9 Filed: 12/16/2024
10 ANCHORAGE v. US

IV. MOA, PORT OF ANCHORAGE 

RESPONSIBILITIES: . . . 7. Authorize all Port 

Expansion funding maintained by MARAD for 

federal project oversight, program management, 

study, environmental analysis, engineering, 

design, construction, or rehabilitation as necessary. 

V. MARAD RESPONSIBILITIES: . . . 7. Obligate 

and disburse funding for Port Expansion project 

oversight, program management, study, 

environmental analysis, engineering, design, 

construction, or rehabilitation pursuant to Port 

Expansion requirements consistent with contract 

requirements. 

J.A. 16045–46. 

The United States argues that this language 

established reciprocal responsibilities for expending funds 

on the project—Anchorage was required to authorize all 

expenditures for substantive project activities, after which 

MARAD would disburse funding for those activities 

through the MARAD-ICRC contract. We agree. The 2003 

Memorandum does not state that MARAD was responsible 

for delivering anything to Anchorage. Anchorage

emphasizes that these clauses refer to the authorization, 

obligation, and disbursement of funds for “federal project 

oversight” and “Port Expansion project oversight.” 

Appellee’s Br. 31–32 (emphasis omitted). This language 

does not obligate MARAD to deliver any specific structure, 

and it also does not obligate MARAD to manage the project 

on Anchorage’s behalf. Yet, Anchorage asserts that the 

language in these clauses “cannot be more clear” and that 

Anchorage authorized project funding so MARAD could 

“deliver a defect free [p]ort to [Anchorage].” Appellee’s Br. 

32–33. But Anchorage fails to identify any such language.

See Pete Vicari Gen. Contractor, Inc. v. United States, 

51 Fed. Cl. 161, 169 (2001) (“The court may not insert a 

term into the contract that simply is not there.”), aff’d, 64 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 10 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 11

F. App’x 780 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Pacificorp Cap., Inc. 

v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 707, 716 n.8, 717 n.9 (1992).

Anchorage further asserts that Addendum 2 of the 

2003 Memorandum required MARAD to deliver a defectfree port to Anchorage. Addendum 2 states:

Acceptance by MARAD of work shall be effective 

upon execution by a MARAD Contracting Officer’s 

Technical Representative (COTR) of a properly 

executed Certificate of Completion tendered by 

MARAD’s prime contractor. Upon acceptance by 

MARAD of work tendered, all right, title and 

interest to such work, and all warranties, and 

guarantees applicable thereto, shall be conveyed to 

the Municipality of Anchorage and its Department, 

the Port of Anchorage (MOA), unless otherwise 

provided. The term “Work” includes, but is not 

limited to: Materials, workmanship, warranties, 

guarantees, and manufacture and fabrication of 

components. 

The Certificate of Completion shall be a document 

executed by MARAD’s prime contractor attesting to 

the prime contractor’s inspection of the work, and 

certifying the work was completed according to 

specifications and all applicable requirements,

including but not limited to customary industry 

standards, and is free from material defects. Prior 

to submission to a MARAD COTR, the Certificate 

of Completion shall also be signed by an authorized 

representative of the Municipality of Anchorage. 

Such signature indicates acceptance by MOA of the 

work provided by MARAD’s prime contractor as 

specifically described in the Certificate of 

Completion.

J.A. 21681.

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 11 Filed: 12/16/2024
12 ANCHORAGE v. US

We find that Addendum 2 simply describes the process 

for reviewing and accepting work done on the project, with 

acceptance to be performed by Anchorage. See Appellant’s

Br. 28–29. Anchorage asserts that Addendum 2 provides 

that “MARAD would certify ‘the work was completed 

according to specifications’” and that “MARAD [would] 

ensure that the work was completed consistent with 

specifications and free of defects.” Appellee’s Br. 34–35. But 

those words never appear in Addendum 2. Instead, the 

addendum only established a process whereby: (1) 

“MARAD’s prime contractor” was responsible for 

“certifying the work was completed according to 

specifications and all applicable requirements . . . and is 

free from material defects,” and then (2) “the Municipality 

of Anchorage[,]” not MARAD, was responsible for 

“accept[ing] . . . the work provided by MARAD’s prime 

contractor.” J.A. 21681.

Finally, a duty to deliver a defect-free port would 

conflict with another express provision in the 2003 

Memorandum. Any interpretation of a contract must give 

a reasonable meaning to all terms and avoid a conflict 

among the provisions. NOAA Maryland, LLC v. Adm’r of 

Gen. Servs. Admin., 997 F.3d 1159, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Here, the termination clause of the 2003 Memorandum

granted both parties an unlimited and unilateral right to 

terminate the agreement at any time with ninety days’ 

written notice. J.A. 21678–79. The trial court 

acknowledged this clause in its damages opinion but 

disagreed with the United States “that[,] because MARAD 

could terminate the Agreement at any time, this disproves 

that MARAD owed Anchorage any specific item of 

construction . . . . The termination clause is just standard 

government contracting language.” J.A. 71. Not so. The 

clause here allowed MARAD to walk away from the project, 

unlike a “standard” termination clause that permits the 

government as procurer to relieve the contractor of its

obligation, at the expense of paying close out costs. See, e.g., 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 12 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 13

FAR 52.249-2. The trial court did not explain how the 

parties’ actual termination provision could be harmonized 

with an obligation to deliver a defect-free port. In short, 

MARAD could not have made a contractual promise to 

deliver any completed item of construction if it also had the 

undisputed freedom to end the agreement at any time for 

any reason.

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the plain 

language of the 2003 agreement did not require MARAD to 

deliver a defect free port.1 Accordingly, we vacate the trial 

court’s decision and remand for the court to consider any 

adequately preserved arguments for breach of duties found 

1 Anchorage urges us to consider testimony from 

contracting personnel as further evidence that both parties 

understood MARAD was to deliver a defect-free port. See, 

e.g., Appellee’s Br. 8–11, 36–38. Testimony from contracting 

personnel regarding their understanding and expectations 

cannot be used to add terms to the 2003 Memorandum. The 

parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law that 

precludes the admission of prior or contemporaneous 

evidence seeking to add to or vary the terms of a written 

agreement when the parties have adopted a written 

agreement as an expression of their final intent. David 

Nassif Assocs. v. United States, 557 F.2d 249, 256 (Ct. Cl. 

1977). “The rule thus renders inadmissible evidence 

introduced to modify, supplement, or interpret the terms of 

an integrated agreement.” Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. 

United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing 

McAbee Constr., Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1435 

(Fed. Cir.1996)). 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 13 Filed: 12/16/2024
14 ANCHORAGE v. US

in the 2003 Memorandum and, if such a breach is found, a 

determination of reliance damages.

B

The United States also argues that it did not breach 

the 2011 Memorandum by settling ICRC’s claims against it 

without conferring with Anchorage. The trial court 

correctly rejected this argument. The United States’

argument contradicts the plain language of clause V.B.7 of 

the 2011 Memorandum, which states that MARAD’s role 

was to “administer claims submitted by [MARAD]

contractors and coordinate and cooperate with the 

[Muncipality of Anchorage/Port of Alaska] in affirmative 

and defense of claims consistent with federal contract law.” 

J.A. 18333 (emphasis added).

The United States claims that federal contract law 

instructs the federal government to try to resolve all 

contractual issues in controversy at the contracting 

officer’s level, which gave “MARAD full discretion 

regarding the management of claims.” Appellant’s Br. 51; 

see also FAR 33.210. But this interpretation would render 

the 2011 Memorandum’s requirement for MARAD to 

coordinate contract disputes with Anchorage meaningless. 

See Jemal’s Lazriv Water, LLC v. United States, 114 Fed. 

Cl. 512, 516 (2013), aff’d, 578 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(“It is a fundamental tenet of contract construction that a 

contract should be interpreted so as not to render portions 

of it meaningless.”). Considering the full language of the 

clause, the correct interpretation is that MARAD was to 

coordinate a response to contract disputes with Anchorage, 

with the requirement that any such response be consistent 

with federal contract law. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s 

holding that the United States breached the 2011 

Memorandum by settling ICRC’s claims without conferring 

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 14 Filed: 12/16/2024
ANCHORAGE v. US 15

with Anchorage, as well as the trial court’s award of 

$11,279,059 in damages to Anchorage.2

IV

We have considered the remainder of the parties’ 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the 2003 

Memorandum of Understanding did not require the United 

States to deliver a defect-free port, we vacate the Court of 

Federal Claims’ decision as it relates to the 2003 

Memorandum of Understanding, as well as its award of 

damages, and remand for consideration consistent with 

this opinion. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ 

determination that the United States breached the 2011 

Memorandum of Agreement by settling subcontractor 

claims without coordinating with Anchorage, as well as the 

court’s award of damages to Anchorage for the United 

States’ breach of the 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.

VACATED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

2 While the trial court awarded the damages from 

the United States’ breach of the 2011 Memorandum under 

an expectation theory, J.A. 71, 74, the damages are more 

correctly categorized as reliance damages, which “put [the 

plaintiff] in as good a position as he was in before the 

promise was made.” Amber Res. Co. v. United States, 

73 Fed. Cl. 738, 744 (2006), aff’d, 538 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). Nevertheless, the award itself is correct.

Case: 22-1719 Document: 69 Page: 15 Filed: 12/16/2024