For federal construction contractors, payment and performance bond obligations in construction contracts with the federal government that exceed $150,000 should, typically, come as no surprise. However, what requirements should contractors expect from a contract that is ambiguous as to whether it is a construction contract, yet calls for construction-related services, but lacks explicit bonding requirement terms? Can bonding requirements be “read-in” to the contract? When should contractors raise such questions? This past November, the Federal Circuit addressed those questions in K-Con, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, 908 F.3d 719 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This decision provides instrumental lessons contractors should keep in mind before submitting offers for projects that include construction-related services.
Continue Reading

In a recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA No. 57675 et. al., decided on December 15, 2015, the Board repeated something that has been said many times before:

We consider daily logs to be the most reliable evidence of what actually happened during construction. Technocratica, ASBCA No. 46567 et al., 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,391 (“Daily inspection reports have been held to be prima facie evidence of the daily conditions as they existed at the time of performance.”)


Continue Reading

We’ve warned you before against relying on informal, or oral, directives from a Contracting Officer; get it in writing!   A recent case before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals reminds us that contractors also need to be wary about who from the government is giving those directives.

In EEC International, ASBCA No. 55781