Contract changes, particularly in the construction context, can be flash points for the Government and a contractor. In some cases, the Government will assert that the contract requires the contractor to perform certain work; the contractor, pointing to the same (or another) contractual provision, will argue that the contract does not require it. These diverging positions can often lead to contentious litigation.
If you’ve ever found yourself in this position (or perhaps find yourself there currently), you’ll probably find a recent decision from the ASBCA, GSC Constr., Inc., ASBCA No. 59046 (July 11, 2019), illuminating. There, the board addressed various changes that the Government allegedly made to the contract, but for which it did not compensate the contractor. In some cases, it agreed with the contractor that compensation was owed; in one instance, it did not.
The task order, issued by the Army, required the contractor to “construct a combined Central Issue Facility . . . for permanent party troops and soldiers in Advanced Individual Training” at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. The task order amount was $11,951,460 and the task order incorporated the contractor’s proposal and twelve amendments.
The contractor alleged that during construction the Government required it to perform additional work beyond the contractual requirements in four different areas: a potable (domestic) water line, a fire protection loop, a sanitary sewer main, and a truck turnaround. Let’s see how ASBCA analyzed each issue, focusing on key contract language for each.
Continue reading at: SmallGovCon
Earlier this Fall, the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the certified claim lacked a proper signature. 
For a contractor with a claim on a federal construction project, an essential occurrence is a “final decision” by the government contracting officer. Ideally, this is a formal written response addressing the merits of the claim.
To federal construction contractors, the true legwork may seem to begin only after the government has accepted a proposal and performance has begun. However, a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decision reinforces that federal construction contractors’ work often should begin long before contract award.
On the heels of the recent post on the subject of 
The contractual duty of “good faith and fair dealing” is well established in private contracts. Depending on your jurisdiction, there is very likely either a formal or an informal rule that parties to a contract must deal with each other honestly and in good faith. This is (usually) not a written contract term – rather, the duty is implied automatically in order to reinforce the parties’ intent when entering into the agreement.
Two huge construction firms that are helping to build about 54 miles of bullet train structures in California’s Central Valley are seeking an additional $300 million on their fixed-price contracts, the Los Angeles Times has learned.
You are reviewing a contract modification and notice a paragraph titled “Release of Claims.” Do you know what claims will be released by this language?
But what if – instead of adding time and/or scope – the government de-scopes work from the contract by issuing a partial termination? A recent successful claim shows that the contractor can still recover its increased costs.