Suppose that you (the Contractor) had extra costs and want payment for those extra costs from the designer. But,
- No property was damaged,
- Nobody got hurt (thankfully), and
- There is no contract between you and the designer.
Likely Result: You cannot recover from the designer because of the economic loss doctrine, which usually applies when the facts listed above are true.
Possible Solutions:
- Carefully negotiate your scope of risk under the contract;
- Trust but verify (consider using an independent design reviewer pre- or post-bid and pre-construction);
- Manage, coordinate, and communicate; and/or
- Apply an exception to the rule (depending on which State you’re in and the unique facts of the scenario).
Here’s a recent example from the highest court of Maryland where the contractor (unfortunately) lost:
Under a contract with the City of Baltimore, the Contractor agreed to construct improvements to a wastewater treatment plant including construction of giant concrete tubs to hold untreated wastewater. The Contractor constructed the tubs per the third-party engineer’s design, but the tubs leaked. The Contractor sued the engineer for money damages, no persons were injured and no property was damaged from the leaking tubs.
The highest court in the State of Maryland denied the Contractor’s recovery from the engineer. The court denied the contractor’s request for two main reasons. First, the City, Contractor, and engineer had carefully limited their risk by the complex construction contracts, so there was no need for the court after-the-fact to adjust the limits of that risk. Second, adjusting the limits of the agreed-upon risk could result in higher costs for future public construction projects and, since public projects are often funded with taxpayers’ dollars, then taxpayers would be funding the potentially higher costs. [Editorial note: I generally agree with the court’s first reason, but find the second reason flimsy.]
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 451 Md. 600 (2017)
Government Contractors: Build a Snowman in August
As a Government Contractor, when have you agreed to perform a certain way, but later realized that another way is better for everybody? When the Government agrees, expressly or impliedly, to the alternative performance, it waives a credit for the unperformed work.
Construction Dispute Settlement: Dealing with Details
Reap the benefits of settling a construction dispute by doing these things.
E-mail Signature Not Enough to Certify a Claim
Construction project professionals routinely send e-mails with “signatures,” which typically include the sender’s typewritten name, title, contact information, and/or company logo. But, this sort of e-mail “signature” is not enough to certify a claim to the Government.
Government Contractors: Ask for a “Sum Certain” in Your Claim
If your Claim includes an item for damages with an amount “TBD,” you could lose the entire Claim.
Contractors: Be Aware When Contracting with Virginia Public Agencies
Without a valid contract, a Virginia public entity has no duty to to pay for any of your work.
Constructive Acceleration
Contractors know that time is money. So, the point is clear when expressly told to “Speed Up! Go Faster!”
But, what do you […]
Construction Contracts & Whodunit
Imagine reading a crime novel and just when you think you figured out whodunit, a plot twist suggests a different culprit. In construction contracting, finding the right answer can be a difficult task when
Trick or Treat in Government Contract Claims
Without a request for a contracting officer’s final decision, claimants may seek treats, but get tricked instead.
Owner Nonpayment is No Defense to Miller Act Claim
As if you needed confirmation that the Federal Miller Act is a powerful tool for unpaid subcontractors, this is it. Even when a Prime ordered and accepted the Sub’s work, but didn’t have to pay under the Subcontract, the Subcontractor still. . . .
