What’s the difference between a suspension of work and a constructive change? For federal contractors, there are two important differences:
- If you want profit, prove a constructive change.
- If any other contract clause affords an equitable adjustment (e.g., Changes Clause), the Suspension of Work clause won’t help you.
To recover from a suspension of work, a contractor must show:
- Contract performance was delayed;
- Government directly caused the delay;
- The delay was for an unreasonable period of time; and
- The contractor suffered damages therefrom (excluding profit); and
- No other clause provides an equitable adjustment to the Contractor
To prove a constructive change, a contractor must show:
- Any written or oral order from the Contracting Officer;
- Not a directed change;
- That caused a change;
- Contractor gave timely notice that it considered the order as a change; and
- The contractor suffered damages therefrom.
In a recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals decision, the Board agreed with the contractor in finding an unreasonable delay (179 days) and awarded damages for a suspension of the work. In the same decision, the Board also found a constructive change in the contractor’s favor. The Board did not discuss why the suspension of work clause prevailed when the contractor may have been able to show a constructive change (unless, perhaps, notice of a constructive change was inadequate).
BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, CBCA No. 5410, March 26, 2018
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 […]
