Opinion ID: 774014
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restitution beyond the minimum required contribution

Text: 20 The government also argues that any award to Landmark should have been limited to $20 million, as that was the minimum initial contribution that would constitute performance under the contract. The trial court rejected this argument, holding that the terms of the contract are unambiguous in that no ceiling was placed on the initial contribution, but rather it was specified to be not less than $20 million, and that if the parties had intended for performance to be limited to $20 million they would not have included the phrase not less than. Landmark, 46 Fed. Cl. at 266-67. 21 The proper interpretation of a contract is a question of law, which we review de novo. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States, 244 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We agree with the court's interpretation of the Assistance Agreement on this point. The Agreement required Landmark to make an initial contribution. Landmark's initial contribution complied with the Agreement's requirement that its value be not less than $20,000,000. Further, there is nothing in the Agreement to indicate any intent of the parties for that portion of the initial contribution beyond $20 million to be deemed anything other than an undivided part of the initial contribution. Because the Agreement's provisions are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Alaska Lumber & Pulp Co., Inc. v. Madigan, 2 F.3d 389, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the entirety of Landmark's $21.5 million initial contribution constitutes performance under the Agreement, and the trial court properly refused to limit the award to $20 million. 22