Opinion ID: 221854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Depot Claim

Text: Yannacopoulos also claims that General Dynamics falsely certified its compliance with the terms of the Certification Agreement in relation to Contract 5/86's depot program. Article 8.2 of Contract 5/86 contained a $49,887,435 line item for a depot program, relating to materials and equipment for use in repairing and maintaining the F-16s. Article 8.11 explained that the depot program was subject to reassessment by Greece until no later than 12 months after Contract 5/86's effective date. During the time period for reassessment, General Dynamics agreed to limit the cost[s] incurred for the depot program to those required to maintain the contract delivery schedule, which were anticipated to include the depot site survey, preparation of recommended lists and schedules and preparation for and support of the depot working conference(s). Greece never authorized General Dynamics to begin work on the depot program, and the parties ultimately cancelled that program in July 1995. General Dynamics submitted a number of invoices relating to the depot program, each of which certified General Dynamics' compliance with Contract 5/86 and the Certification Agreement. As in his spare parts claim, Yannacopoulos contends that these certifications were false because General Dynamics failed to report to [the] DSAA ... that it had reached an [implicit] understanding with Greece to disregard the timetable imposed by Article 8.11. Under this timetable, he says, Greece had until April 25, 1987 to either `delete' the depot program in whole or in part, or [to] select the depot work it wanted and authorize GD to begin performance. We disagree with this strained interpretation of Article 8.11, which rests on a reading of select language from that article without regard for its context. Although Article 8.11 provided a limited period of time in which Greece could reassess the depot program, that time limit must be read in conjunction with the contractual language found immediately thereafter. See Delta Mining Corp., 18 F.3d at 1403. That language required General Dynamics to limit the cost[s] incurred on that depot program during the period of time allowed for reassessment. Article 8.11 did nothing to limit the Greek government's ability to reassess its interest in the depot program at any time. Rather, that article gave the Greek government a year in which it could reassess its interest in that program without having to worry about incurring unnecessary costs for a program that it had decided not to purchase. Greece could reassess its interest in buying the depot program after the Article 8.11 deadline had passed, but it would do so at its own risk. After that deadline passed, General Dynamics was no longer prohibited from incurring costs beyond those specifically delineated in that article, costs that we presume were assessed against Greece like any other costs under Contract 5/86. Because Yannacopoulos' claim regarding the depot program rests on an incorrect interpretation of Article 8.11, the claim fails as a matter of law. The district court was correct to grant summary judgment for General Dynamics on that claim.