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 | 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 […]
Roads & Bridges | Maximizing Damage Recovery
MAXIMIZING DAMAGE RECOVERY
Tracking Costs, Avoiding Duplication in Liquidated and Actual Damage Claims
A County and Contractor contracted for construction of a road and […]
Roads & Bridges | Roadwork, Delays and Disputes
ROADWORK, DELAYS, AND DISPUTES
The Subcontract Case In Pecos County, Texas
“Road construction is ubiquitous in our society. . . .” C&C Road […]
Roads & Bridges | Understanding Sovereign Immunity
UNDERSTANDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY| Public Contracts and Lessons from Recent Texas Cases
Generally, governmental entities are immune from lawsuits. One exception is contractual. If […]
Roads & Bridges | Indiana Court Upholds Broad ND4D Clause
INDIANA COURT UPHOLDS BROAD ND4D CLAUSE | Ruling Precludes Subcontractor Claims for Delay and Acceleration Damages
This is the story of an Indiana […]
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
