Search

The author discusses the use of promissory estoppel doctrine focusing on the case Neshaminy Constructors Inc. v. Concrete Building System Inc. (CBS), regarding the use of a subcrontractor's price quote of the prime to the owner to recover the cost. He mentions the decision of the court in favor of CBS holding that neither the use of CBS' price in the bid of the prime to the owner nor the notice to CBS of the lower price submission for the precast work constituted acceptance of CBS offer.

The article discusses court cases about the Pay-if-Paid clause in the contract of a prime contractor, which include the Moore Brothers Company v. Brown and Root Inc. case, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Sweet's Contracting Inc. case, and BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland. Topics covered include the importance of payment bond surety, the limitations of the prime contractor's liability, and different U.S. state laws relating to Pay-if-Paid clauses.

The author focuses on the Davidson and Jones, Inc. v. North Carolina Depart. of Admin. court case that he believes serves a lesson to contractors and owners to read their notice provisions closely and understand exactly what prompts the duty to provide notice. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the contractor's award of additional compensation for the 3,714 cubic yard of rock it encountered during construction but reversed the trial court's award of duration-related costs.

The article describes the case of two entities that joined efforts to procure an information technology contract from the U.S. federal government. It considers the issue of whether a teaming agreement obligates the successful prime contractor to subcontract with all team members on the project. The case, Cyberlock Consulting Inc. vs. Information Experts Inc., illustrates that a teaming agreement must be more than a mere agreement to negotiate in the future in order to be enforceable.

The article focuses on the issue of written notices as a prerequisite for contractor's claims for adjustments in contract sum or time extension. It underscores the importance of advance written notice for contractors who intend to file compensation claims as a result of extra work or specification changes. It cites the case of Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. versus State of Utah Department of Transportation in connection with the interstate highway construction project.

The article deals with the ruling issued by the U.S. District in California, wherein it upheld the right of a subcontractor to be protected against liability under the state's Miller Act. The court in the case of Foundation Fence, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Company, rejected the claim of the prime contractor and surety to recover payment from the owner in behalf of the subcontractor. The pertinent provision of the U.S. Code on waiver of the right to bring a payment bond claim is mentioned.

Warns contractors of the reliance of United States transportation agencies on failure to give notice as means of denying requests for compensation. Import of the case involving Huff Enterprises Inc.; Need for strict enforcement; Compliance with the contract.

Discusses two federal cases analyzing the Eichleay formula, which contractors use to recover home office overhead in delay cases. Legal distinction between `pure delays' and extended performance caused by changes; Uncertainty over the time period covered by delays; Consideration of the practicality of taking on replacement work during the delay.

Presents information about Ray D. Lowder Incorporated versus N.C. State Highway Commission, a case where the contractor was denied recovery of compensation for a differing site condition claim. Overview of the case; Information on the court's ruling.