Ever had buyer’s remorse or second-guessed a decision? When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did that, a Contractor won its claim for time and money.
On a flood control project near Nogales, Arizona, severe flooding delayed and impacted the Project. Thereafter, the Government and Contractor both signed modifications for other changes. Subsequently, the Government internally circulated a draft Mod pertaining to flood-related delays and impacts. Even later, the Government invited and the Contractor submitted an REA for several claim items, including an item for flood-related events. The Government internally considered the REA, but never rendered a decision. (The only failure is not deciding. – Gen. George S. Patton)
When the Contractor appealed to the Court of Federal Claims, the Government argued that the bilateral mods included release language broad enough to be an accord and satisfaction of the flood-related events.
The affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction requires four elements: (1) proper subject matter, (2) competent parties, (3) a meeting of the minds of the parties, and (4) consideration.
The Court held the proper subject matter element was not met when the signed mods were for changes unrelated to the flood. More interestingly, the Court also held the parties did not come to a meeting of the minds (i.e., the parties did not share the same understanding or belief) because after both parties signed the modifications with the release language, the Government continued to consider the Contractor’s flood-related claim item by: (1) internally circulating a draft modification for the flood-related events and (2) requesting and internally considering the Contractor’s REA.
Perhaps the most bothersome fact about all of this is that the Contractor would not have learned about the Government’s continued consideration of its claim for flood-related events had the Contractor given up the fight.
Meridian Engineering Company v. U.S., Court of Federal Claims, No. 11-492C (Sept. 23, 2019).
Differing Site Conditions: When the Part Does Not Equal the Whole
If all apples are fruit, then why are all fruit not apples?
Forum Selection Can Be a Home-Court Advantage
I promise that any disputes between us will be argued at your house. Time passes and a dispute begins to brew. Now, I want to argue at my house, not at yours. You pay costs to argue at my house that you wouldn’t have incurred had I done as agreed. Should I have to reimburse your costs?
No-Damage-for-Delay and Owner-Related Dispute Clauses are No Defense to Surety Liability Under Miller Act
Prime Government Contractors - you may need to update your interim payment waivers.
Contractual Fairness is Whatever the Parties’ Agreed
When you know a current action or inaction is wrong, but you do not object, should you be allowed to object later?
Which Comes First – Specifications or Drawings?
Sometimes it's not better to ask for forgiveness after-the-fact.
Government Contract Claims: When Appeal is Rejection of Settlement
Without a reservation of rights, appealing a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision is a rejection of any offer of payment or settlement included therein. So, the contractor had only three options.
Linking Obligations
If you want to bind the subcontractor to the prime in every way the same as the prime is bound to the owner, then the incorporation clause of the subcontract should be: . . .
Termination of Government Contracts for Convenience (T4C)
Imagine you’re a Government Contractor under a firm, fixed-price contract and you’ve done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, the Government has decided to unilaterally end its contract with you. Yes, the Government can do this...
Government Contractors: Build a Snowman in August
As a Government Contractor, when have you agreed to perform a certain way, but later realized that another way is better for everybody? When the Government agrees, expressly or impliedly, to the alternative performance, it waives a credit for the unperformed work.
