If all apples are fruit, then why are all fruit not apples? Because the part does not represent the whole. A Government Contractor discovered this when it learned that all unsuitable material was unsatisfactory material; but, all unsatisfactory material was not unsuitable material. Let me explain . . .
Under a Contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for two explosives storage magazines and a storm drain at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, “unsatisfactory materials” were to be replaced with satisfactory materials. Basically, “unsatisfactory materials” included anything that could not be used as backfill.
As is typical, the Corps answered several pre-bid questions that later became amendments to the Contract. One of the Corps’ answers stated, “assume unsuitable material is not encountered.” The Contractor improperly equated “unsuitable material” with “unsatisfactory material.”
Although the term “unsuitable material” was not separately defined in the Contract, the Court found that other Contract provisions (e.g., pre-bid Q&A’s, specs, and soil borings) helped to define it as “unsatisfactory material” but only at certain depths/locations. Thus, the pre-bid Q&A did not pertain to “unsatisfactory materials” generally; but, only a subset of unsatisfactory materials – “unsuitable materials.”
While the whole included the part (unsatisfactory material included all unsuitable material), the part did not equal the whole (unsuitable material did not include all unsatisfactory material).
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 […]
