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).
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.
Construction Dispute Settlement: Dealing with Details
Reap the benefits of settling a construction dispute by doing these things.
E-mail Signature Not Enough to Certify a Claim
Construction project professionals routinely send e-mails with “signatures,” which typically include the sender’s typewritten name, title, contact information, and/or company logo. But, this sort of e-mail “signature” is not enough to certify a claim to the Government.
Government Contractors: Ask for a “Sum Certain” in Your Claim
If your Claim includes an item for damages with an amount “TBD,” you could lose the entire Claim.
Contractors: Be Aware When Contracting with Virginia Public Agencies
Without a valid contract, a Virginia public entity has no duty to to pay for any of your work.
Constructive Acceleration
Contractors know that time is money. So, the point is clear when expressly told to “Speed Up! Go Faster!”
But, what do you […]
Construction Contracts & Whodunit
Imagine reading a crime novel and just when you think you figured out whodunit, a plot twist suggests a different culprit. In construction contracting, finding the right answer can be a difficult task when
Trick or Treat in Government Contract Claims
Without a request for a contracting officer’s final decision, claimants may seek treats, but get tricked instead.
