Florida Federal Court Dismisses Fluor Enterprises’ $67M Claim Against Duke Energy for Wrongful Draw Down of Credit Letter

Tampa D Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, No. 8:19-cv-00224, 2019 BL 135007, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2019)

finizioa_thumb
Anthony Finizio

On April 16, 2019, a Florida federal court dismissed without prejudice Fluor Enterprises’ claim that Duke Energy wrongfully drew down a $67 million letter of credit issued in connection with Fluor’s construction of a gas-fired electrical generation facility in Citrus County, Florida.  In addition to the core breach of contract claim which suffered from several procedural issues, the court dismissed extra-contractual claims for conversion, civil theft, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Continue reading “Florida Federal Court Dismisses Fluor Enterprises’ $67M Claim Against Duke Energy for Wrongful Draw Down of Credit Letter”

Court of Federal Claim Rejects Spearin Claim and Holds Contractor Responsible for Failure to Prevent Mold Growth

James Talcott Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-427 C, 2019 BL 72711, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 4, 2019)

berrk_thumb.jpg
Kristopher Berr

In May of 2010, the United States, acting through the Department of Defense (the “Government”) awarded a contract to James Talcott Construction, Inc. (“Talcott”) to replace existing housing for military families at the Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana.  Talcott was required to construct thirteen buildings, each comprising seventy housing units.  Each building was to be constructed with concrete foundations and wood framing, and the project’ design called for wooden floor joists and subfloor decking to be enclosed in crawlspaces.  The contract stated that the “structural drawings and specification represent the finished structure… [but] do not indicate the method of construction.  The contractor will provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction.”  The plans and specifications were silent as to ventilation of the crawlspaces.

Continue reading “Court of Federal Claim Rejects Spearin Claim and Holds Contractor Responsible for Failure to Prevent Mold Growth”

Federal Court in Idaho Rules That a Government Contractor May Recover Consultant Fees, So Long as Those Fees Were Incurred in Contract Administration and Negotiation of an Equitable Adjustment But Denies Recovery Because the Consultant Failed to Maintain Proper Records

Tri-State Elec., Inc. ex rel. Apex Enters. v. Western Sur. Co., 1:14-CV-00245, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4974 (D. Idaho Jan. 11, 2017)

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) contracted with Sygnos, Inc. (“Sygnos”) for improvements to the electrical system at a VA hospital in Boise, Idaho. Sygnos subcontracted a portion of the work to Apex Enterprises, Inc. (“AEI”), who in turn subcontracted a portion of its work to Tri-State Electric, Inc. (“Tri-State”).  Delays plagued the project from the outset, and the work – originally scheduled for completion in 240 days – ultimately took more than 950 days to perform.  Disputes concerning responsibility for and the amount of delay damages ensued.

Sygnos submitted a request for equitable adjustment to the VA as a result of the delays. Receiving no timely response from the VA, Sygnos converted the request for equitable adjustment to a claim for delay damages under the Contract Disputes Act, which the VA and Sygnos settled for $645,000.  AEI and Tri-State subsequently sued Sygnos for delay damages they incurred on the project.  Sygnos did not dispute that AEI and Tri-State had suffered delays but it disputed some categories of damages claimed and cited the no-damage-for-delay clause in Tri-State’s contract as barring its claims. Continue reading “Federal Court in Idaho Rules That a Government Contractor May Recover Consultant Fees, So Long as Those Fees Were Incurred in Contract Administration and Negotiation of an Equitable Adjustment But Denies Recovery Because the Consultant Failed to Maintain Proper Records”