Federal Circuit, Citing the Christian Doctrine, Holds That Performance and Payment Bonds Are Required for All Construction Contracts, Even When the Bonding Requirement Is Not Expressly Stated in the Contract

K-Con, Inc. v. Sec’y of the Army, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31196 (Fed. Cir., November 5, 2018)

In September 2013 K-Con, Inc. (“K-Con”) entered into two contracts with the government to supply and construct pre-engineered metal buildings for a laundry facility and a communications equipment shelter.  The government issued both contracts using Standard Form 1449, entitled Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items.  The contracts’ terms did not contain any requirement to provide a performance or payment  bond.  Nor did they include FAR 52.228-15, which requires performance and payment bonds on construction contracts.

In October 2013 the government directed K-Con to supply performance and payment bonds before a notice to proceed could be issued.  K-Con initially refused but ultimately provided the bonds two years later.  The contracts were then adjusted to add the cost of the bonds.

K-Con submitted a claim under each contract for increases in costs for the two year delay, for a total value of $116,336.56.  The Contracting Officer denied the claim on the basis that the agreements were construction contracts, for which performance and payment bonds were mandatory pursuant to FAR 52.228-15, and that that provision was incorporated into the contracts pursuant to the Christian doctrine under which a court may insert a clause into a government contract by operation of law if that clause is required under applicable federal regulations.  G.L. Christian & Associates v. Unites States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963).  K-Con appealed to the Armed Services Board, which affirmed the denial of the claims.  K-Con then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Continue reading “Federal Circuit, Citing the Christian Doctrine, Holds That Performance and Payment Bonds Are Required for All Construction Contracts, Even When the Bonding Requirement Is Not Expressly Stated in the Contract”

Claimant Is Not Required to Conduct an Investigation Into the Veracity of the Representation to Prove Justifiable Reliance When Asserting a Fraudulent Inducement Claim Under the Miller Act

Fisk Elec. Co. v. DQSI, L.L.C., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17914 (5th Cir., June 29, 2018)

 DQSI, L.L.C., (“DQSI”) a general contractor, was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) for a pump station construction project.  Western Surety Company (“Western”) issued a Miller Act payment bond on DQSI’s behalf.  DQSI hired Fisk Electric Company (“Fisk”) as subcontractor to perform electrical work on the project.

The project was delayed 464 days due, in part, to adverse weather conditions.  Fisk asserted expenses due to the delay of over $400,000 against DQSI and submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) to DQSI for the 464 days of delay.

Fisk sued DQSI and Western pursuant to the Miller Act.  The parties then entered into a settlement agreement wherein Fisk would release DQSI for payment of approximately $55,000 and for DQSI’s agreement that it would submit the REA to the Corps and pursue it.  Continue reading “Claimant Is Not Required to Conduct an Investigation Into the Veracity of the Representation to Prove Justifiable Reliance When Asserting a Fraudulent Inducement Claim Under the Miller Act”

Subcontract Provision Requiring Subcontractor to Pass Through its Claims Does Not Prevent the Subcontractor From Suing to Recover Against Miller Act Bond

Pinnacle Crushing & Constr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67965 (W.D. Wa. Apr. 23, 2018)

The Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”), as owner, and Cherokee General Corporation (“CGC”), as prime contractor, entered into a contract (the “Contract”) in connection with work at the Yakima Training Center (the “Project”).  CGC subcontracted with SCI Infrastructure (“SCI”) for certain work related to the Project (the “SCI Subcontract”), and SCI subcontracted with Pinnacle Crushing & Construction, LLC (“Pinnacle”) (the “Pinnacle Subcontract”).  CGC obtained a Miller Act payment bond (the “Bond”) from Hartford Insurance Co. (the “Surety”) to provide coverage for labor and materials supplied in carrying out the work.

After the Corps terminated the Contract with CGC, CGC submitted a claim under the Contracts Disputes Act.  As required by the SCI Subcontract, CGC asserted SCI’s pass through claims against the Corps, which included amounts allegedly owed to both SCI and Pinnacle.

Separately, SCI and Pinnacle sued CGC and the Surety to recover under the Bond for the work they performed under the subcontracts, but for which CGC had not paid them. Continue reading “Subcontract Provision Requiring Subcontractor to Pass Through its Claims Does Not Prevent the Subcontractor From Suing to Recover Against Miller Act Bond”