ASBCA

Subscribe to ASBCA via RSS
Contract and Gavel Illustration

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ (ASBCA) recent decision in Odyssey International, Inc. provides contractors with yet another cautionary tale when executing modifications with the government: make sure you fully understand the consequences of what you are gaining (and possibly losing).

In Odyssey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the government) contracted for the construction of a building at an Army depot in Pennsylvania. A micropile system, which involves drilling small-diameter holes into bedrock and inserting grout into any voids before inserting a metal pole and casing, was to be used in the building’s foundation. Although potential offerors were to assume the need for 60 micropiles, the solicitation also noted that the contractor bore responsibility for the micropile foundation system’s design. After a series of discussions on the topic, the government informed Odyssey to submit its micropile design independent of the bidding criteria. As a result, Odyssey’s design, which the government approved, proposed using 80 micropiles instead of 60.
Continue Reading Bilateral Modifications: Read, Re-Read, and Read Again Before You Sign

Contract and magnifier

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 No Bonding Requirements? Think Again, Instructs the Federal Circuit

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 Timely Documentation is Critical

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…