Too often I’ve heard, “we didn’t want to rock the boat, so we just discussed the problem, but didn’t provide written notice.” But, remember The Godfather – “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.”
Under a contract to furnish and install HVAC piping for a U.S. Army training facility at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, the Contractor argued the contract drawings and specs lacked the design details necessary to perform the work. The Contractor submitted several RFIs.
The Government argued the Contractor must use a letter, not an RFI, to notify the Contracting Officer of design problems. The Board held the information conveyed in the Contractor’s RFIs was sufficient to notify the government of a design discrepancy and “the Board (and the government) should not elevate form over substance in evaluating the sufficiency of a contractor’s notice.”
The Government also argued that the Contractor bore the risk of performing the changed work before the CO responded to the Contractor’s notice. Holding in the Contractor’s favor, the Board reasoned the risk borne by the Contractor is the risk of an incorrect course of action. If the Contractor takes the correct course of action (i.e., if it performs the work exactly as the CO would have directed) the Government suffers no harm, so the Contractor bears no such risk. When the Contractor acts before the CO responds, the Contractor bears the risk of taking incorrect action. If you’re gonna act, make it the correct action.
This case did not decide which party was at fault for the missing design details (i.e., Spearin Doctrine). But, [spoiler alert] the Government doesn’t automatically bear such responsibility even if it is a design-bid-build contract.
Appeal of UNIT Company, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, No. 60581 (Feb. 12, 2018).
Pay-If-Paid Unenforceable in Virginia Starting Jan. 1, 2023
As of Jan. 1, 2023, pay-if-paid clauses are unenforceable, regardless of whether a surety/payment bond claim is involved. This is only for […]
How Short is Too Short
A limitations period is too short when it’s unreasonably short.
Construction Contracting Without Relief Clauses During COVID-19
What to do if your contract lacks the parts to handle COVID-19? Considerations for creating new contracts during COVID-19.
Your Contract Can Handle COVID-19
Uncertainty and risk are not new or novel to contractors. Contracts reduce uncertainty and share the risk of doing or providing something. COVID-19 may have contributed to, but it has not single-handedly created, uncertainty and risk.
Contractors Can Use RFI to Notify the Government
The Board (and the government) should not elevate form over substance in evaluating the sufficiency of a contractor’s notice.
Taxes Due!
It’s tax season again, so it’s time to pay the piper.
Contractor Wins when Government Reconsiders Accord
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 […]
Claim Certified with Digital Signature Deemed OK
The law is not a trend-setter. It doesn’t readily change or adapt to tech. So, a commonplace practice in business became a dispute when a claimant digitally certified a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
