Korte Construction Co. v. Secretary of the Army
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | April 9, 2026
Facts
Korte Construction was awarded an approximately $72.8 million design-build contract for a fuel systems maintenance hangar at Tinker Air Force Base. The dispute centered on whether the solicitation required Korte to install certain chilled water improvements, including piping to the slab edge and related connection points for future work. Korte argued that the contract documents did not require that work because the drawings lacked enough detail and did not clearly define the relevant chilled water references. The Army took the opposite position, treated the work as included, and later sought a refund of roughly $493,000 after the work was deleted from the contract.
Issues
The main issue was whether the solicitation, read as a whole, required Korte to perform the chilled water work. A related issue was whether any inconsistency between the specifications and drawings created a patent ambiguity, which would trigger the contractor’s duty to ask questions before bidding rather than rely on its own reading after award.
Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Armed Services Board and held that the contract required the chilled water improvements. The court found that the specifications and drawings, read together, unambiguously called for that work. The court also held that Korte’s interpretation was not reasonable and that, even under Korte’s reading, the solicitation at minimum presented a patent ambiguity that required pre-bid inquiry. Because Korte did not raise that issue before award, it could not recover on that theory later.
👉Takeaway: This case is a strong reminder that contractors must read solicitations as an integrated whole, not as isolated specifications or drawings. When plans appear inconsistent, incomplete, or unclear, the safer course is to raise the issue before bid rather than assume a narrow interpretation and fight about scope later. For federal contractors in particular, patent ambiguity remains a serious trap: if the inconsistency is obvious enough that a reasonable bidder should notice it, failing to inquire can eliminate a later claim.
