Lack of Owner Coordination on a Multi-Prime Construction Project

This is the third blog post in a six-part series about an owner’s duty to coordinate and cooperate on multi-prime construction projects. The purpose of this series is to provide awareness of the owner’s duties along with case examples on the subject. This post provides a case example of a contractor’s successful recovery of its damages due to an owner’s lack of coordination.

Case Example No. 1 – Lack of Owner Coordination
In Pierce Associates, Inc.,¹ the Board of Contract Appeals (the “BCA”) found that Pierce Associates, Inc. (“Pierce”) was entitled to an equitable adjustment under the suspension of work clause within the contract documents for delays caused by another prime contractor’s late performance, because the government failed to demand that a slow-performing predecessor contractor comply with the government’s overall schedule.

The government awarded Pierce with a Phase I mechanical contract for work on the Washington Technical Institute (“WTI”) facility in Washington, D.C. The government hired a construction manager and utilized a phased construction project delivery method for Phase I of WTI. Pierce’s work depended on the completion of work by the structural contractor, Piracci Corporation (“Piracci”). Piracci’s progress experienced problems that delayed Pierce.

Pierce tried to mitigate the impact caused by Piracci’s delays and meet its contractual milestone dates by working around Piracci. Pierce suffered damages to its least-cost performance due to Piracci’s interference. Pierce recovered its increased cost under the suspension of work clause, which stated:

(b) If the performance of all or any part of the work is, for an unreasonable period of time suspended, delayed or interrupted by an act of the Contracting Officer in the administration of this contract, or by his failure to act within the time is specified in this contract (or if no time is specified in within a reasonable time), an adjustment shall be made for any increase in the cost of performance of this contract (excluding profit) necessarily caused by such unreasonable suspension, delay or interruption.

The BCA agreed with Pierce that its contract duration was delayed by an unreasonable amount due to the government’s lack of coordination. The BCA also concluded that the government failed to exercise its right of control over Piracci’s inefficient work.

¹     Pierce Associates, Inc., GSBCA No. 4163, ¶ 12,746 (1977).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Blog

Discover industry insights on construction disputes and claims, project management, risk analysis, and more.

MORE

Articles

Articles by our engineering and construction claims experts cover topics ranging from acceleration to why claims occur.

MORE

Publications

We are committed to sharing industry knowledge through publication of our books and presentations.

MORE