When you know a current action or inaction is wrong, but you do not object, should you be allowed to object later? Typical notions of fairness may suggest the answer is no. But, contractual fairness is whatever the parties’ agreed would be fair before the wrong action or inaction ever occurred.
In September 2009, a Contractor agreed to perform reconstruction work on a hurricane protection levee in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The Contract included specific requirements for the placement of geotextile fabric. With the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspectors onsite and observing, the Contractor installed (or placed) most of the total fabric for the Project. The Contractor also submitted QC reports detailing how the fabric was placed. The Corps acknowledged receipt of the Contractor’s QC reports and took no exceptions to the Contractor’s methodology.
Only after the Project was about 2/3 complete, did the Corps reject the Contractor’s placement methodology as being contrary to the Contract requirements. The Corps demanded all the fabric that was already placed and covered with fill be uncovered and re-placed. The Contractor understandably objected, but had to comply and filed a certified claim seeking recovery.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held the Contract requirements were not ambiguous (i.e., the Contractor should have known it was placing the fabric incorrectly).
The Contractor is in a tough spot. It thought that its interpretation of the Contract was reasonable and correct. So, the Contractor thought it was unnecessary to formally confirm its understanding with the Corps before beginning work. Additionally, the Contractor probably thought its understanding was confirmed when the Corps inspectors did not object.
This story is not over. The Contractor may yet prevail at a hearing. The text of the fabric placement requirements is included in the link below. Do you think it’s unclear?
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]
Roads& Bridges | Confusing Waters
CONFUSING WATERS | A Supreme Court ruling leaves room for ambiguity
What happens when there may be a “significant nexus” between “adjacent” and/or […]
Roads & Bridges | Authority Defined
AUTHORITY DEFINED | The Law of Agency is Important to Understand
For any project, this Russian proverb is helpful: Doveryay, no proveryay – […]
Jurisdiction is Power
Not bad power, but the ability of a decision-maker (e.g., court) to decide which side is right (or which is more correct). […]
