Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Skyrise Construction Group, LLC v. Annex Construction, LLC, 2019 BL 55071 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2019)

Subcontractor Skyrise Construction, Inc. (“Skyrise”) sued general contractor Annex Construction, Inc. (“Annex”) for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Wisconsin and Illinois trade practices statutes.  Skyrise primarily based its claims on an assertion that the parties entered into a subcontract, which Annex breached when it removed Skyrise from the project and completed the work with an alternative subcontractor.  Both Skyrise and Annex filed motions for summary judgment.  The District Court denied Skyrise’s motion and granted Annex’s motion.

Aspic Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, No. 17-16510, 2019 BL 26363 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company (“Aspic”), a local Afghan subcontractor, entered into multiple subcontracts with ECC Centcom Constructors and ECC International (“ECC”), the prime contractor, to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.  The subcontracts contained terms and conditions “applicable to all U.S. Government subcontracts,” and mandated that Aspic owed ECC the same obligations that ECC owed to the federal government.  The subcontracts also incorporated multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clauses, including FAR 49.2 through 49.6, which govern the recovery of expenses in the event a contractor is terminated for convenience, i.e. required documentation and procedures.

Hagen Constr. Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. JKB-18-1201, 2019 BL 36862 (D. Md. Feb. 04, 2019)

This case arises out of the construction of a pediatric outpatient center in southern New Jersey.  Plaintiff subcontractor Hagen Construction, Inc. (“Hagen”) filed suit in New Jersey state Court against defendant general contractor Whiting-Turner Construction Co. (“W-T”), seeking reimbursement for labor inefficiency costs incurred as a result of W-T’s alleged project mismanagement.  Hagen claimed it incurred additional costs to repeat work and remobilize to multiple areas because it was not afforded unimpeded access or timely supply of necessary materials and information.  Once the case was removed and transferred to Maryland federal Court, W-T moved for partial summary judgment on the portion of Hagen’s breach of contract claim reflecting labor inefficiency costs.

CB&I Areva Mox Servs., LLC v. United States, 2018 U.S. Claims Lexis 1549 (November 9, 2018)

Nearly two decades ago, the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (“NNSA”) awarded a contract for the design, construction and operation of a Facility at the Savannah River Nuclear Site (‘the Contract”) to Mox Services’ (“Mox’s”) predecessor in interest, Duke, Cogema, Stone & Webster, LLC.  Mox has no employees and subcontracts out the entirety of its work under the Contract to subcontractors.  CB&I Project Services Group (“CPSG”), Mox’s parent company, was the principal subcontractor.  The Contract followed a “cost reimbursement” model whereby NNSA would pay Mox for certain allowable costs that Mox incurred in performing the Contract.

In 2015, CPSG began an employee “re-slotting” process where CPSG changed its employees titles and, in some cases, their compensation.  During this process, CPSG put nearly all of its non-craft workforce (roughly 863 employees) into new positions.  Of the 863 employees, 55 received salary increases.  CPSG increased its billing rate for these 55 employees.  Mox did not specifically notify NNSA about this re-slotting and increase, but instead provided the increased billing rates to NNSA as part of its pay requisitions.  In April 2016, upon realizing the increase, NNSA notified Mox that the information it provided to justify the salary increase was insufficient and requested additional information, and warned it would take “appropriate action” to protect itself.  The NNSA later withheld 2% of the total direct non-craft labor expenses –$1,142,112.00.

Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Robbins Co., P.C., No. 1:17-CV-01968, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57729 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018)

On March 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Maxum Indemnity Co. and declared that Maxum has no duty to defend or indemnify The Robbins Company in an international arbitration initiated by a third-party, JCM Northlink, LLC.

Robbins is a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of tunnel-boring machines (“TBMs”) and was engaged by JCM to supply a TBM for Seattle’s Northgate Link Extension project to add additional light rail lines to the city’s existing public transportation system.  Maxum insured Robbins under two commercial general liability policies in connection with the Northgate Link Extension project.

K-Con, Inc. v. Sec’y of the Army, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31196 (Fed. Cir., November 5, 2018)

In September 2013 K-Con, Inc. (“K-Con”) entered into two contracts with the government to supply and construct pre-engineered metal buildings for a laundry facility and a communications equipment shelter.  The government issued both contracts using Standard Form 1449, entitled Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items.  The contracts’ terms did not contain any requirement to provide a performance or payment  bond.  Nor did they include FAR 52.228-15, which requires performance and payment bonds on construction contracts.

In October 2013 the government directed K-Con to supply performance and payment bonds before a notice to proceed could be issued.  K-Con initially refused but ultimately provided the bonds two years later.  The contracts were then adjusted to add the cost of the bonds.

K-Con submitted a claim under each contract for increases in costs for the two year delay, for a total value of $116,336.56.  The Contracting Officer denied the claim on the basis that the agreements were construction contracts, for which performance and payment bonds were mandatory pursuant to FAR 52.228-15, and that that provision was incorporated into the contracts pursuant to the Christian doctrine under which a court may insert a clause into a government contract by operation of law if that clause is required under applicable federal regulations.  G.L. Christian & Associates v. Unites States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963).  K-Con appealed to the Armed Services Board, which affirmed the denial of the claims.  K-Con then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Coalview Centralia, LLC v. Transalta Centralia Mining LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185914 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2018)

This case involves a dispute over Coalview Centralia, LLC’s (“Coalview”) performance of environmental cleanup work at a coal mine and associated power plant near Centralia, Washington.  TransAlta Central Mining (“TCM”) hired Coalview to remediate and restore three waste coal slurry impoundment ponds.  In general terms, Coalview agreed to dredge the ponds, extract the coal fines for use in the power plant, and deliver the remaining slurry for final disposal.  Coalview was to submit monthly invoices – and to be paid – based on the weight of slurry removed or the weight of usable coal recovered, whichever is greater.

The Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) between TCM and Coalview provided, in pertinent part, that: (1) TCM had 30 days to “dispute” an invoice and explain the reasons for its dispute; (2) the parties had a one-year period to correct invoice “inaccuracies”; and (3) “[n]otwithstanding any disputes … contractor and owner shall diligently proceed with performance of this Agreement.”

Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. T

ravelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162265 (D. Nev., September 21, 2018)
Clark County School District (“CCSD”) hired Big Town Mechanical (“Big Town”) as general contractor to perform HVAC upgrades at five schools.  Big Town in turn hired F.A.S.T. Systems (“FAST”) to complete low-voltage work at the schools.  Big Town obtained performance bonds from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) and FAST obtained performance bonds from Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”).

Following FAST’s default on its subcontracts, F&D opted to complete FAST’s work and hired a substitute subcontractor, Perini.  In May 2012, Perini notified Big Town that it had “substantially completed” all of FAST’s work.  After Big Town refused payment, F&D filed suit against Big Town and Travelers in early 2013.  In May of 2013, CCSD rejected Big Town’s final payment application, stating that the project was incomplete and claiming there were significant defects in the work.  CCSD then sued Travelers seeking specific performance and liquidated damages for delay.  Travelers eventually settled CCSD’s suit but through its counterclaim sought reimbursement from F&D for its settlement plus costs expended to complete the project.

AWI Sec. & Investigations, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5867 (August 23, 2018)

A subcontractor, AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (“AWI”), sued a general contractor, Whitestone Construction Corp. (“Whitestone”), for unpaid contract payments for providing security services on four separate construction projects.  A separate prevailing wage action (“Wage Action”) was also filed by AWI employees who worked on the projects, against both AWI and Whitestone.  Whitestone notified AWI that it was invoking the subcontract indemnity provision to withhold funds from AWI pending the outcome of the Wage Action.

Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI’s suit for payment based on a contractual limitations period requiring the suit to be brought within 6 months of: the cause of action accruing; the termination or conclusion of the contract; or the last day AWI performed work at the site, which Whitestone alleged had all occurred.  The court granted Whitestone’s motion to dismiss, finding that AWI had completed its work more than six months prior to filing its lawsuit and that AWI’s suit was barred by the contractual limitations period.  AWI appealed.

Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. v. JA Manning Constr. Co. 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21878 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)

This article was published in the February 2019 issue of ConsensusDocs Construction Law Newsletter (Vol. 5, Issue 1).

This dispute arose from a contract to build a pumping station in Arkansas (the “Project”).  In June of 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) awarded a contract to Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. (“Kinder”) to serve as the general contractor on the Project.  Kinder entered into a subcontract with J.A. Manning Construction Co. (“Manning”) to engineer, furnish and install a mechanically stabilized earth (“MSE”) wall at the Project.

The Project experienced significant delays which affected the Manning’s initial start date.  By the time Manning could begin constructing the MSE wall, only six days remained until the original completion date of the entire Project.  Unknown to Manning, however, Kinder was telling the COE that weather and other issues were delaying the Project and Kinder represented to the COE that its projected completion date for MSE wall was in the summer of 2012.  At the same time, Kinder was telling Manning that the MSE wall needed to be completed by November of 2011 and repeatedly threatened to assess delay damages against Manning if this did not occur.  In addition, during the construction of the MSE wall, Kinder and/or the COE demanded that Manning install the wall panels 0.75 inches apart with absolutely no variance, despite industry standard allowing a 0.25 inch variance.  On March 7, 2012, Kinder terminated Manning, at which point Manning had constructed 27.5 feet of the 40-foot MSE wall.  The MSE wall was later completed by a replacement contractor, although the wall as-accepted by the COE contained a number of defects that Kinder and the COE told Manning were unacceptable.