Richard of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP Published August 5, 2020 In an important case for architects and design-builders, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is liable for delays arising from design-reviewer comments that change the design process specified in the contract
In the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) decision, RBC Construction Corp. , the owner of the project required the contractor to provide additional information concerning the proposed design of an underground fire cistern as part of the design review process
By Alexander Gorelik of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Published June 17, 2021 A pair of recent decisions from the United States Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), addressing the appeals of Odyssey International, Inc. to actions taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, underscore just how damaging failure to obtain payment and performance bonds can be for a contractor on a federal construction job
Cl. 160 (1981); Fru-Con Corp. v. State, 50 Ill...[7] See Bruner & O’Connor, supra note 2, at § 15:92; Conti Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Admin...Norair Engineering Corp. v. U.S ., 229 Ct
Coon of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Published in Construction and Procurement Law News , Q2 2022 The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) recently granted a motion for summary judgment, filed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) in Odyssey International, Inc . in which the Corps argued that the contractor’s execution of a previous bilateral modification containing release language precluded the contractor’s subsequent claim for increased costs
In the mid-2000s, the United States Army decided to build a facility for satellite communications at Camp Roberts, California. The Army hired Watts Constructors, LLC (“GC”), who in turn hired Helix Electric, Inc
—Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract and each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be submitted within 6 years after the accrual of the claim.[1] In addition to these procedural requirements of a claim, the Boards and Courts have also held that the actual definition of a “claim” that only appears in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), not the CDA, is also relevant to jurisdictional analysis.[2] On August 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit, in ECC International Constructors, LLC v. Secretary of the Army reversed this line of cases and found that only statutory requirements may be considered jurisdictional, with important consequences for contractors.[3] In ECC International , the contractor submitted a delay claim to the Army contracting officer (CO) without including a specific demand for money but instead relying on the ability of the Agency to calculate the claim amount based on the submission of cost estimate reports and daily costs for the delay period
Stieger of Stinson LLP Published April 23, 2020 Despite “troubling” government conduct, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently denied an appeal arising out of electrical work performed on a $38 million construction project involving the ground-up construction of four buildings for the United States Army. The dispute in Watts Constructors, LLC , ASBCA No. 61493 involved the use of rigid conduit as opposed to the more economical integrated metal clad (MC) cable in the running of electrical power lines through the newly constructed buildings
Supp. 2d at 408; see also Cortinas Painting & Rest., Inc. v. Corp Inc., Constr., 2017 WL 4640326 *7 (Wash...(citing Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins
By Hailey Barnett of Troutman Pepper Published on July 28, 2022 Tocci Bldg. Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC , 101 Mass