|
Volume 5 - Number 06 | February 5, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
According to current statistics, as many as 97 percent of cases filed never see the inside of a courtroom. While some cases are dropped, most disputes are resolved before the parties square off before a judge and jury. Experts agree that success in out-of-court negotiations is largely dependent on the parties’ willingness to participate and compromise. The practice of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has gained popularity in the past 15 years and is a conversational hot topic within the industry. But, what happens when the parties are compelled to arbitrate by a judge? Is forced mediation legal? This week’s first case looks at these issues.
Our second case also raises some interesting questions. Can a contractor be liable for unexpected subsurface conditions? What duty does an owner have to warn the contractor about possible (though non-verified) conditions?
The third case also deals with differing site conditions. Can a contractor claim a condition if the solicitation for bids did not mention the condition but the contractor included the condition as a line item in its bid proposal? The ASBCA says the contractor cannot pursue the claim.
Finally, a federal claims court takes a no-nonsense approach to a contractor that abused a paper-filing process to augment its coffers and secure larger projects.
|
|
CONTRACTOR’S BID STRUCTURE DEFEATS SITE CONDITION CLAIM
A contractor unintentionally exempts itself from a differing site condition claim on a government project because it included a line item unit price for that exact condition when it bid on the government’s task order work.
|
|
ON THE MOVE
Find out who switched firms and who has been promoted. Want to see your company’s latest news here? E-mail it to editor@wpl.net.
|
|
