During a recent soccer game, my seven-year-old son took the ball squarely in the face. But, he walked it off and continued playing. Contractors must do the same with changes.
In 2006, under a contract with NAVFAC for repairs to a wastewater treatment system at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the Contractor encountered differing site conditions. NAVFAC did not issue a suspension or stop work order, but the Contractor stopped working awaiting responses to RFIs. NAVFAC did not respond to all the RFIs. So, the Contractor submitted a certified claim, but the Contractor never resumed work. The Contractor should have continued working.
Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the Contractor is obligated to “prosecute the work diligently” and continue performance pending the outcome of a claim. (FAR 52.211-10 and 52.233-1(i)). Doing so not only mitigates potential delays and damages, but it ensures that when a claim is submitted, a “sum certain” (i.e., showing of damage) is possible.
In this case, the Contractor’s claim submission was premature and the Contractor’s refusal to perform directed or constructive changes pending the promise of payment precluded the ASBCA from having any power to resolve the dispute. The ASBCA dismissed the Contractor’s appeal because the Contractor sought future damages for work it had not yet performed. At worst, NAVFAC could have terminated the Contractor for default.
Appeal of Islands Mechanical Contractor, Inc., ASBCA No. 59655 (April 13, 2017)
Roads & Bridges | Award Upheld in W. Va. Caisson Dispute
AWARD UPHELD IN W.VA. CAISSON DISPUTE
Federal court reinforces high bar for overturning arbitration
In 2018, the West Virginia Department of Highways (DOH) awarded […]
Roads & Bridges |Let the Contract Lead
LET THE CONTRACT LEAD
Documents offer guidance needed to manage risk without derailing projects
Construction is an industry of managed risk. Whether the prices […]
Roads & Bridges | When is an Invoice Really an Invoice?
WHEN IS AN INVOICE REALLY AN INVOICE?
All court decisions are opinions. Appellate court decisions are typically made by a panel of three […]
Roads & Bridges | Clarifying Punitive Damages
CLARIFYING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In June 2021, the South Dakota Department of Transportation contracted for the demolition and construction of a bridge on State […]
Roads & Bridges | When Approximate Means Assumed Risk
WHEN APPROXIMATE MEANS ASSUMED RISK
A New York Court Shows How Performance Specifications Can Leave Contractors Holding the Bag
Sometimes when we are told […]
Roads & Bridges | From Roman Arches to AI
FROM ROMAN ARCHES TO AI
Can Construction Evolve Without Risk?
The construction industry blends old with new. From ancient Roman archways and aqueducts and […]
Roads & Bridges | Caught in the Middle
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
New Mexico bridge case highlights the importance of written agreements for changes and delay compensation
In construction contracting, hope for […]
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
