ASBCA Awards Contractor Compensation for Extra-Contractual Changes

Contract changes, particularly in the construction context, can be flash points for the Government and a contractor. In some cases, the Government will assert that the contract requires the contractor to perform certain work; the contractor, pointing to the same (or another) contractual provision, will argue that the contract does not require it. These diverging positions can often lead to contentious litigation.

Continue reading

GAO Report: Agencies Need to Improve Data on Construction Contract Changes

Many federal construction contractors know that contract changes can be frustrating business. Changes can be unilateral or bilateral. They can stress a contractor’s finances. They can delay the overall project. And they can result in animosity between the agency and a contractor.

Fortunately, GAO has shined some light on the problems in the contract change process. Indeed, in a recent report, GAO concluded that agencies, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers and GSA, need to develop better systems to collect data about changes in construction contracts.

Continue reading

Excusable Delay: Government’s Failure To Extend Was “Constructive Acceleration”

Federal contractors not so infrequently find themselves in a position where they are unable to complete performance of a contract by the agreed-upon deadline. So, what happens when the delay is neither party’s fault, but the government denies extension of the period of performance or provides inadequate extensions?

In IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. (ASBCA Nos. 59397, 59398, and 59399), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found under the legal theory of “constructive acceleration” that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was liable for extra costs incurred by IAP due to the Corps insistence of timely contract delivery despite excusable delays.

Continue reading

Government’s Engineers Couldn’t Modify Contract, Says ASBCA

A construction contractor was unable to recover the costs of performing changed work allegedly ordered by the government’s project engineers because the engineers did not have authority to modify the contract.

As demonstrated in a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision, only a contracting officer or the contracting officer’s designated representatives may modify a contract, and a contractor bears the risk of non-payment by performing changed work directed by an unauthorized government employee.

Continue reading