“Two roads diverged in a wood, and . . .” the Prime Contractor had to take both roads at the same time to the same place.
Problem Example
Subcontractor on project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Ft. Lee, Virginia, sued Prime Contractor and Surety for nonpayment under the Federal Miller Act. Prime and Surety wanted to pause (stay) the litigation while pursuing arbitration. The Court granted a stay of the litigation for the Prime. The Court denied the stay of the litigation for the Surety because:
- The Surety was not obligated under any written agreement to arbitrate and
- The Surety’s liability under the Miller Act is independent of the Prime’s liability (these two facts are true in most instances).
In other words, even if the Prime owes nothing to the Subcontractor, the Surety could still owe payment to the Subcontractor if the lawsuit was timely filed, the work was done, and the Subcontractor was not already paid. In this case, the Prime had to pay for the Surety’s defense (a typical obligation) in the litigation while simultaneously paying for its own arbitration defense.
Potential Solution(s)
To avoid/reduce this dual-track approach/cost, prime contractors can:
- Seek the surety’s prior written agreement to arbitrate;
- Apply the American Arbitration Association’s Fast Track Procedures if the disputed amount is less than $100,000; or
- Require Alternative Dispute Resolution before any litigation (this will work in the Federal First Circuit (ME, NH, MA, and RI), but may not work in all Federal Courts). (Caution: Requiring arbitration of a Miller Act dispute will not pause the one-year statute of limitations to file a Miller Act lawsuit.)
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 […]
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]










