|
Volume 5 - Number 22 | May 28, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
In 1986, after receiving countless reports of persons and entities defrauding the federal government, Congress reinstated the False Claims Act, originally instituted during the Civil War. Today, those who defraud the government of payment are liable for three times the government’s damages as well as other civil penalties. Several states have since adopted similar legislation, including California, which is the location of this week’s first case. An appeals court looked at whether failure to pay a prevailing wage on a government-funded project constituted fraud under the state’s False Claims Act.
Also this week, we look at standard industry practices. If project documents do not spell out that specific materials must be used, will the argument of standard industry practice be enough to support a contractor’s claim when the project owner rejects the work for failure to use the right materials? The ASBCA weighs in on the question.
Finally, John Livengood presents a synopsis of the forthcoming manual on forensic schedule analysis, due out in a few weeks by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI). He predicts that the manual will change how the industry (and possibly courts) views forensic schedule analysis.
|
|
SPECIFICATION FOR ENCLOSURE DID NOT IMPLY SAME MATERIAL FOR EQUIPMENT
Relying on a supplier’s interpretation of material specifications is a standard industry practice, says the ASBCA. If bid documents do not specify certain materials, the contracting officer has little recourse when the contractor uses reasonable judgment when choosing materials.
|
|
