|
Volume 5 - Number 24 | June 11, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Postmortem justifications for work not performed to contract specs are rarely effective ways to please a project owner. As Napoleon Hill, best-selling author of Think and Grow Rich, said, “The best job goes to the person who can get it done without passing the buck or coming back with excuses.” A contractor’s reasonings for deviating from contract specifications on a government project (as well as its proposed methods to rectify the discrepancies) do not find sympathy with the Army Corps of Engineers or the ASBCA, as is shown in this week’s first case.
This week’s other two cases share a common thread—both question whether one party has the right to sue the other. In one, the initial agreement was technically illegal. Could one party sue the other for a subsequent agreement that was based on the illegal contract? In the other, the plaintiff did not exist when the original work was performed. Could it sue a manufacturer for a faulty product? In both cases, the answer is yes.
|
|
UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLOWED TO SUE QUALIFYING AGENT
Despite a determination that an initial agreement between an out-of-state contractor and a local “qualifying agent” is illegal, a state appeals court rules that the contractor can sue the agent for a subsequent agreement.
|
|
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS ENFORCED
A concrete contractor’s defense that its work complied with industry standards does not stack up with its contracting officer or the ASBCA. It should have complied with the contract specifications, which required precise measurements for a canal bulkhead.
|
|
