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?
Claim Certified with Digital Signature Deemed OK
The law is not a trend-setter. It doesn’t readily change or adapt to tech. So, a commonplace practice in business became a dispute when a claimant digitally certified a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
