Photo of Jane Fox Lehman

Jane Fox Lehman

Subscribe to Jane Fox Lehman's Posts

SAK & Assocs. v. Ferguson Constr., Inc., 189 Wn. App. 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)

Ferguson Construction, Inc. (“General Contractor”) entered into a fixed sum contract (the “Subcontract”) with SAK & Associates (“Subcontractor”) to provide concrete materials and paving services (the “Work”).  The Subcontract included a termination for convenience clause providing that General Contractor could terminate Subcontractor for convenience upon written notice.  After Subcontractor completed 24 percent of the Work, General Contractor terminated Subcontractor.  General Contractor paid Subcontractor 24 percent of the fixed contract price for the work Subcontractor actually completed.

Vanguard Constr., Inc. v. United States, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1158 (Fed. Cl. Sep. 8, 2015)

The United States Air Force (the “Government”) entered into a contract with Vanguard Construction, Inc. (“Contractor”) to replace a roof (the “Contract”).  The Contract incorporated by reference portions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Contractor’s demolition of the existing roof revealed that a significant section of the roof stem wall was missing.  The Contract did not address the contingency of a missing stem wall.  Contractor sent the Government several letters asking for guidance on how to proceed, including a request for information on structural requirements for building a stem wall.  The Government refused to provide the requested information, asserting that the terms of the contract allocated to the Contractor the risk of dealing with latent or unanticipated site conditions and the burden of devising a solution to the problem.

Montano Elec. Contractor v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5928 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015)

The Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) hired a general contractor, who subcontracted certain electrical work to Montano (“Subcontractor”).  When Subcontractor was not paid for its work, Subcontractor sought assistance from the Corps’ contracting officer, who explained that he was unable to assist because Subcontractor did not have a contract with the government and the government was thus not a party to Subcontractor’s dispute; however, Subcontractor should pursue any claims it had against the general contractor in federal district court under the Miller Act.

East Coast Paving & Sealcoating, Inc. v. N. Allegheny Sch. Dist., 111 A.3d 220 (Pa. Commw. Mar. 6, 2015).

North Allegheny School District (“Owner”) hired East Coast Paving & Sealcoating, Inc. (“Contractor”) to pave several large areas.  Shortly after Contractor began its paving work, Owner’s architect found “soft spots” in the areas to be paved.  Contractor’s scope of work under the contract did not include soft spot repair work, in which soft ground is replaced with compacted stone before paving, but Contractor and Owner’s Director of Facilities, who had the authority to authorize additional work, agreed that Contractor would do the repair work.  Owner’s architect’s finding of soft spots and Owner’s Director of Facilities’ agreement with Contractor were documented in a report to Owner.  A second report to Owner documented Contractor’s commencement of the repair work.

Transportation Eng’g, Inc. v. Cruz, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Nov. 7, 2014)

The Florida Department of Transportation (“DOT”) hired Transportation Engineering, Inc. (“TEI”) to design, and D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. (“DAB”) to install, median guardrails along the Florida Turnpike.  After the installation project, a woman was killed when a vehicle in which she was a passenger struck an uncushioned guardrail end in a “clear zone,” an area next to a road where drivers can attempt to regain control of errant vehicles.  The woman’s estate filed suit against DOT, TEI, and DAB, alleging, in relevant part, that TEI and DAB negligently designed and constructed the guardrail ends without “crash cushions.”