Federal Circuit Reverses Metcalf v. U.S.
Holds Government Cannot Bar Differing Site Conditions Claims with Broad Disclaimer Language, AND Government is Bound by a Broad Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing In a major victory, not only for the...
View ArticleDiffering Site Conditions: Trial Necessary to Determine if Federal Contractor...
A contractor on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project filed a complaint with the U.S. Claims Court, claiming it was entitled to equitable adjustment to its contract for additional costs and time due...
View ArticleWyoming Case Highlights Importance of Following Contractual Notice Provisions
By Charlie G. Baxley Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. A recent Wyoming case – JEM Contracting, Inc. v. Morrison – Maierle, Inc. – serves as a reminder to contractors and subcontractors of the...
View ArticleLiquidated Damages Found to be Unenforceable Penalty; but Waiver of Differing...
Contractor brought suit seeking additional compensation for costs resulting from differing site conditions and alleged inaccurate site plans. The Owner counterclaimed for liquidated damages based on...
View ArticleContractor May Recover on Differing Site Condition Despite Not Following the...
After final payment was made under its contract, a utility construction contractor submitted a written request for additional payment to the project owner seeking payment for extra work it performed as...
View ArticleEncountering Soil Conditions Differing from data in Government Provided...
Geotechnical, Saturated Soil, Geotechnical Report, Metcalf Construction During site excavation, a design-build contractor encountered a large quantity of unsuitable soils, and this required remediation...
View ArticleGovernment Can’t Use Contract’s General Disclaimer of Reliance on Site...
By: J. kent Holland, Jr. The U.S. Army denied a differing site condition claim of its contract that allegedly encountered subsurface rock conditions as well as ground water conditions, differing...
View Article
