In a decision issued on April 21, 2008,  Bell BCI Company v, United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a decision that can only be described as a “slam dunk” for the contractor. The case arose from the construction of a laboratory building at the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) in Bethesda, Maryland.  Approximately nine months into construction, NIH decided to add a new floor to the building. NIH issued more than 200 contract modifications that delayed the completion of the project by 19-1/2 months, and increased the contract price by $21.4 million, or 34 percent.  The prime contractor, Bell BCI Company (“Bell”), received payment for performing most of the changed work, but asserted an impact claim for the cumulative effect of the changes on Bell’s overall performance.  The decision includes a number of conclusions of law that will be very interesting to contractors who face unwarranted denials of cumulative impact claims, or the unfair application of leverage by the Government. The description below is based upon excerpts from the decision, but a reading of the entire decision is strongly recommended.

The Court found in favor of the contractor, and awarded damages of $6,200,672, the full amount of its claim, plus Contract Disputes Act interest measured from April 5, 2002. The record demonstrated that NIH, despite its best intentions, lost control of the project beginning in September 2000, and could not prevent the scientists who would occupy the building from demanding changes. The addition of a new floor after construction had begun proved to be a disastrous idea, particularly in causing many mechanical and electrical changes after the work already had been installed.  As changes and delays mounted, NIH and its quality management firm only made matters worse by directing Bell to perform extra work without time extensions, or authorizing Bell to accelerate performance. In issuing 200-plus contract modifications, NIH actually addressed more than 730 Extra Work Orders (“EWOs”).

The Court found that there was evidence that NIH failed to satisfy its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in the administration of the project. NIH asserted a liquidated damages claim against Bell knowing that such a claim lacked a factual basis. NIH lodged this claim only to gain negotiating leverage after Bell submitted a request for equitable adjustment.  Further, NIH’s quality construction manager recanted the Contracting Officer’s approval of various extra work items after Bell had completed the extra work.  The Court noted “a contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.” Moreland Corp. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 268, 292 (2007). The same principle applies where the agency asserts an unfounded liquidated damages claim solely to gain negotiating leverage.

The Court stated that Bell’s claim for damages from delay and cumulative impact on the NIH project sometimes is called a “delay and disruption” claim. There is a distinction in the law between: (1) a “delay” claim; and (2) a “disruption” or “cumulative impact” claim. Although the two claim types often arise together in the same project, a “delay” claim captures the time and cost of not being able to work, while a “disruption” claim captures the cost of working less efficiently than planned. Bell BCI Co. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 164, 168 (2006); see also U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc., 671 F.2d 539, 546 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (holding that, unlike a delay claim that provides redress from not being able to work, a disruption claim compensates for damages when the work is more difficult and expensive than anticipated).

The contractor must prove for either claim the elements of liability, causation, and resultant injury. When the contractor is asserting a delay claim, the contractor has the burden of showing the extent of the delay, that the delay was proximately caused by government action, and that the delay caused damage to the contractor. While the law requires “reasonable certainty” to support a damages award, damages do not need to proven with mathematical exactness. Rather, “[i]t is sufficient if a claimant furnishes the court with a reasonable basis for computation, even though the result is only approximate.”  Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 253, 274 (2006)


Continue Reading

In a case captioned as Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States concerning a contract with the Corps of Engineers for the construction of a structure at Biggs Army Airfield, the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of Federal Claims ruling awarding an equitable adjustment to ACE Constructors (“ACE”) and the return of liquidated delay damages.  The Court had ruled that, due to unforeseen conditions and defective specifications that were incorporated into the contract, ACE was entitled to additional relief beyond that which was provided by the contracting officer.  In particular, the Court awarded ACE its additional costs for: 1) being required to use a more expensive concrete testing methodology than was required by the contract; 2) being required to use a more expensive method of concrete paving than was required by the contract; and, 3) a Type I differing site condition that required 129,000 additional cubic yards of fill dirt.

On appeal, the government argued that the award for concrete testing was erroneous because: 1) ACE had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction over the claim; 2) the contract required the more expensive testing method; and 3) ACE did not demonstrate that its bid was based on the less expensive method of testing.  The Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal claims had jurisdiction because the claim presented to the contracting officer and the claim before the Court did not differ significantly.  The Circuit Court also upheld the lower court’s ruling that the specifications were defective and that ACE reasonably concluded that the more expensive testing was not required by the contract (a fact which the government had acknowledged during the course of performance of the contract).  Finally, the Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s ruling that ACE reasonably based its bid on the less expensive method of testing. Regarding the method of concrete paving required by the contract, the government again argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim and additionally argued that ACE unreasonably relied on the defective contract specification when it calculated its bid based on the less expensive method of paving.  The Federal Circuit again found that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the claim and upheld the Court’s ruling that when the government provides a contractor with defective specifications, it is deemed to have breached the implied warranty that satisfactory contract performance will result from adherence to the specifications. ACE’s reliance on the specifications was reasonable.


Continue Reading

The government has the right to insist upon strict compliance with the contract specifications. However, the government does not have an unlimited right to require corrective work when it is not really necessary and amounts to economic waste. In other words, just because a contractor has failed to comply with the precise requirements of the specifications, that

As we have mentioned previously, the growing use of multiple award task order contracts in federal construction contracting, as can be seen in much of the disaster recovery work in New Orleans, is limiting the competitive opportunities for small and mid-sized construction contractors.  Unless a contractor is the recipient of one of the major task order contract awards, there is no opportunity for a contractor to compete for upcoming individual task orders and the contractor is effectively precluded from competing for potentially millions of dollars of work to be awarded over a period of years. In the past, when there were more single award contracts, if a contractor lost out to a competitor, there was always another solicitation on the horizon.  If a contractor fails to become one of those selected to compete under a multiple award task order contract, there may be no, or very little, work “waiting in the wings.”

It follows that it is important to monitor the decisions of the GAO and the courts to see what is being done to protect the rights of contractors, and we will continue to do so.  In a newly issued GAO decision, Palmetto GBA, LLC, B-299154, December 19, 2006, the Comptroller General stated that according to the legislative history of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), task and delivery-order contracts were intended to encourage the use of multiple-award, rather than single-award contracts, in order to promote an ongoing competitive environment in which each awardee would be fairly considered for each order issued.  H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-712, at 178 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2607, 2608; S. Rep. No.103258, at 15-16 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2561, 2575-76. In this regard, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to provide all awardees “fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts.”  FAR sect. 16.505(b)(1)(i).

An interesting aspect of the Palmetto case is that the GAO reiterated that a task or delivery order that precludes competition for future task or delivery orders for the duration of the contract performance period may constitute a “downselection.”  The GAO has recognized downselections in circumstances not only where all work under a contract will be foreclosed from future competition, but also where specific categories of work will be similarly foreclosed for the duration of the contract.  While the GAO did not find that “downselection” occurred in the Palmetto case, it is important for contractors to recognize that a task order award that eliminates competition for future work can be successfully protested.
Continue Reading

This recent Court of Federal Claims decision involves a USDA contract for the construction of a vegetable laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina. The contractor was terminated for default and the bonding company, Travelers Casualty and Surety of America, took over under the terms of the performance bond. 

While there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the Court’s lengthy recitation of the facts, the Court did restate some important rules governing the determination of defective specifications. The Court referred to one of the landmark cases in federal government contracting, Spearin v. U.S., where Justice Brandeis wrote the Supreme Court opinion that established the “Spearin Doctrine’ (a contractor will not be liable to an owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or defects in plans and specifications). As the Supreme Court explained:

[I]f the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications. This responsibility of the owner is not overcome by the usual clauses requiring builders to visit the site, to check the plans, and to inform themselves of the requirements of the work . . . . In Spearin, the Supreme Court held that contract provisions “prescribing the character, dimensions and location of” a structure to be constructed “imported a warranty that, if the specifications were complied with, the [structure] would be adequate.”


Continue Reading

The Navy recently awarded three cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to Fluor International, Inc., URS-IAP, LLC (a joint venture of URS Corporation and IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.) and Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC (a limited liability company managed by The Shaw Group) for global contingency construction. Each contract was for a base year with four one year options, and the value of each contract was approximately one billion dollars. The contractors were to provide construction and related engineering services in response to war fighting needs, global natural disasters, and humanitarian assistance.

The awards were made following a "best value" evaluation based on experience, past performance, contingency planning, management, small business utilization, and cost. Non-cost factors were considered more important than cost. A disappointed offeror, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (“KBR”), filed a GAO protest asserting that the Navy misevaluated the proposals under technical and cost factors. The GAO agreed and issued a decision sustaining the protest.


Continue Reading

The GAO published a decision today in the Matter of SunEdison, LLC, B-298583; B-298583.2, dated October 30, 2006, involving SunEdison’s protest of an award to PowerLight Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-06-R-B501, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the construction and operation of a photovoltaic array to supply solar power to Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) in Nevada. The protester contended that the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ prices was flawed and the GAO sustained the protest. 

The protester argued that the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ prices was flawed in that it failed to take into consideration that PowerLight’s price was offered contingent upon “successful completion of an REC purchase agreement with Nevada Power,” whereas its own price was offered on an unconditional basis.  The GAO agreed that the agency’s price evaluation was flawed and found hat PowerLight’s inclusion of a contingency in its pricing rendered the proposal ineligible for award.  Where a solicitation requests offers on a fixed-price basis, an offer that is conditional and not firm cannot be considered for award.  Omega World Travel, Inc.; Sato/Travel, Inc., B-288861.5 et al., Aug. 21, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 149 at 6.  Here, not only did PowerLight make its offer conditional upon successful completion of an REC purchase agreement, but further, it acknowledged the uncertainty of such an agreement being reached.

Government contractors need to keep in mind, when responding to a sealed bid invitation or to a request for proposals, that conditional pricing is an almost certain way to have your bid, or offer, rejected.  Of course, this procurement seems to have been yet another of those all too frequent “negotiated” procurements were actual discussions, or negotiations, did not occur. The Contracting Officer simply furnished each of the offerors with “evaluation notices” describing required information that had not been fully addressed in the proposal or that required clarification.  Apparently the uncertainty in PowerLight’s proposal was not addressed, and there were no discussions during which additional issues could have been raised. (Unlike sealed bidding, where a bid cannot be revised after bid opening, offers submitted in response to a Request for Proposals can be revised after offers are submitted if the government conducts discussions, or negotiations, and gives the offerors in the competitive range an opportunity to submit best and final offers. The regulations regarding Contracting by Negotiation are found in FAR, Part 15).


Continue Reading