Requirements may exist outside the four corners of the contract when such requirements are: (1) otherwise mandatory and (2) express a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy. In other words, your contract may include requirements not shown or otherwise indicated in the contract documents.
In an example of this, a Contractor agreed to provide pre-engineered metal buildings for the Army’s use at Camp Edwards, Massachusetts. Under the Miller Act and the FAR, bonds for construction projects are mandatory. The mandate for payment bonds is based upon the “deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy” that security should be provided for entities or persons furnishing labor and materials in the performance of government contracts. The mandate for performance bonds is due to the Government’s need for security to ensure the use of public funds results in a finished product since not completing a public project could be a waste or misuse of public funds. Of course, (dripping with sarcasm) we’ve never seen a public entity waste or misuse public funds, right.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held bonds were part of the contract even though bonding requirements were not expressly stated nor incorporated by reference. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board. K-Con, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No.: 2017-2254 (Nov. 5, 2018).
Next time you review an RFP, carefully consider what you don’t see but that may still be required.
Read another short example here: Adding Terms to a Government Contract without Saying So.
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 […]
