The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has upheld a lower court's decision denying Basic Services Inc. relief from a prior judgment in a contract dispute with the Government of the Virgin Islands. The ruling, issued on June 9, 2026, affects the company’s ability to recover funds related to a contract for technological services in local schools.
The case, Basic Services Inc. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, stems from a breach of contract complaint filed by Basic Services against the government. The dispute centers around a contract awarded in 2005, under which Basic Services was to provide technological services to schools, with 90% of the funding coming from the E-Rate Program. The company claimed that the government failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract, leading to financial losses.
In 2017, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, stating that it had paid its 10% share of the contract and had approved necessary invoices. Basic Services appealed this decision, claiming that new evidence had emerged that would change the outcome of the case. This evidence was related to a conflict of interest involving a member of the vendor evaluation committee that selected Basic Services for the contract.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that the lower court was correct in denying Basic Services' motions for relief. The court found that while the new evidence presented by Basic Services was indeed newly discovered, the company failed to exercise reasonable diligence in uncovering this information before the original judgment was made.
Justice Maria M. Cabret, along with Associate Justices Ive Arlington Swan and Douglas A. Brady, stated in the opinion, "Basic failed to exercise reasonable diligence to determine USAC’s reason for non-payment, and its claims under Rule 60(b)(2) therefore fail." This ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence in legal proceedings, particularly when seeking relief from a judgment.
The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for Basic Services, which now faces challenges in recovering funds it believes it is owed. The ruling also highlights the responsibilities of parties involved in contracts to ensure that they act with diligence and transparency throughout the process.
Moving forward, Basic Services may consider appealing the ruling, although the court's decision appears to be final regarding the issues presented. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in contract disputes and the critical role of due diligence in legal matters.