Volume 7 - Number 44 | November 9, 2009 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 7 - Number 44 | November 9, 2009

Volume 7 - Number 44 | November 9, 2009

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 7-44: It is virtually impossible for contract drawings to depict every detail of every component of a construction project. Drawing details flesh out some aspects of the work. Other details are left unaddressed until after contract award, to be described in shop drawing submittals prepared by the contractor and its subcontractors and fabricators.

In a case reported this week, contract drawings lacked any detailing of the diaphragms in the girders of a bridge structure. The contractor questioned this prior to bid submittal and was told the diaphragms would be detailed in a shop drawing prepared by the truss fabrication subcontractor. The contractor later claimed additional compensation for the diaphragms, contending that the lack of detail in the contract drawings prevented the contractor from pricing the components into its bid.

Other cases this week involve premature price disclosure by agency procurement officials and the mishandling of a settlement agreement by attorneys for a contractor and subcontractor. The price disclosure was improper but did not affect the standing of the competitors. And, the contractors learned the hard way that "the sins of the lawyer are visited upon the client."

LACK OF DRAWING DETAIL DID NOT NEGATE CONTRACT REQUIREMENT: A contractor could not use the absence of a drawing detail to read a requirement out of the contract. Any uncertainty created by the lack of detail had to be factored into the contractor’s bid price. And, any pre-bid statements by an agency engineer were not binding on the government.

VIOLATION OF PRICE CONFIDENTIALITY DID NOT AFFECT TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS: An agency’s premature disclosure of price information to a source selection board did not influence technical evaluations or prejudice the competitive standing of an offeror.

CONTRACTORS BOUND BY ATTORNEYS’ INADVERTENT RELEASE OF PROJECT OWNER: A contractor and subcontractor released claims against the project owner, even though they argued that their attorneys erroneously included the owner in a stipulation of dismissal.