Analyze the issue based on the following criteria:
Plaintiff Business Systems Engineering, Inc., was one of several subcontractors that agreed to provide technical consultants for defendant IBM’s work on a transit project. In a “ plan of utilization” provided by IBM to the transit authority, IBM had listed Business Systems as one of its intended subcontractors, with $ 3.6 million listed on that document under the heading “ contract amount.” The terms of the arrangement between IBM and its subcontractors for the job were that when IBM needed technical consultants for a part of the project, the subs would submit bids and when the subcontractor’s bid was accepted, the subcontractor would receive a specific statement of work detailing the scope of the specific project, the time frame, the conditions under which the task would be deemed complete, and the hourly wage, followed by a work authorization. The transit authority retained the authority to reject any individual consultant who was selected by the subcontractor, and the contract between the subcontractors and IBM incorporated by reference the contract between IBM and the transit authority. Work was not to begin until a final work authorization was issued. At the end of the project, 38 work authorizations had been issued to the plaintiff by the defendant for a total of $ 2.2 million, rather than the $ 3.6 million that had been projected in the original estimate IBM had provided to the transit authority. IBM had paid the plaintiff the $ 2.2 million for the work done on the work authorizations, but the plaintiff argued that it should have been entitled to the full $ 3.6 million contained in the estimate that was incorporated by reference in the contracts between IBM and the sub-contractors. The plaintiff argued that it had a con-tract with IBM for the full $ 3.6 million. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant.
What do you think the plaintiff’s argument was on appeal?
What do think the outcome of the appeal was and why? [Business Systems Engineering, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 547 F. 3d 883, 2008 U. S. App LEXIS 23682.]
