by Kent Holland | Dec 31, 2010 | Newsletter Article
Where Navy’s plans and specifications for roofing work were less than clear, and the contractor reasonably interpreted the contract as calling for waterproof paint rather than multiple-ply flashing material, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the...
by Kent Holland | Dec 31, 2010 | Newsletter Article
An engineering firm performed soil studies and rendered an opinion on the suitability of using septic systems in a residential subdivision being developed by its client. The client sued the engineer on the basis of allegedly inaccurate conclusions. The engineer...
by Kent Holland | Dec 31, 2010 | Newsletter Article, standard of care
A plaintiff’s expert witness was challenged by the defendant on the basis that the expert’s testimony failed to adequately demonstrate that there was a consensus within the architectural community for the standard of care that he asserted applied in the case. The...
by Kent Holland | Dec 31, 2010 | Newsletter Article
Subcontractor is not permitted under the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA) to bring an action against the federal government where the prime contractor failed to pay the subcontractor for its work. This is true even though the federal department (U.S. Navy) committed to...
by Kent Holland | Dec 31, 2010 | Newsletter Article
The liquidated damages (LD) provision in a federally funded contract to re-stripe an interstate highway was held to be enforceable against the contractor that failed to complete a project on time. When the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT or MDOT) assessed...
Connect