Our client was the electrical subcontractor on the $178 million Bassett Army Hospital on Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Our client incurred millions of dollars of additional, increased costs caused by a variety of circumstances—including defective specifications and delay and disruption. Because both the prime contractor and the government were separately responsible for portions of our client’s increased costs, we designed and implemented a strategy for both parties and our client was able to recover more than $4 million.
We were able to negotiate an agreement with the prime contractor that would allow our client to pursue certain claims directly against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in the name of the prime contractor. We quickly reached a settlement with the Corps on our client’s claims, for which the Corps had already issued a final decision.
The prime contractor was still litigating a delay and disruption claim, among others, with the Corps before the ASBCA. While the prime contractor’s appeal at the ASBCA was moving forward, we simultaneously pursued a Miller Act claim against the prime contractor to recover the additional costs for which our client asserted the prime contractor was responsible. We then negotiated a settlement agreement with the prime contractor and surety, which included both a payment to our client as well as a guarantee that our client would recover a specified minimum on its own delay and disruption claim, which the prime contractor was still litigating against the Corps before the ASBCA. Along with the prime contractor, we then participated in a mediation with the Corps and settled the delay and disruption claim, resulting in a further payment to our client.
Our client was the electrical subcontractor on the $178 million Bassett Army Hospital on Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Our client incurred millions of dollars of additional, increased costs caused by a variety or circumstances—including defective specifications and delay and disruption.
Our client, a general contractor on a large federal project in Texas, faced a multi-million dollar claim brought by a subcontractor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor alleged various impacts and delays for which it blamed our client.
Our client was a lender seeking repayment of a multi-million dollar commercial loan to a failed developer. After filing a lawsuit against the guarantor of the loan, we prevailed via summary judgment against the guarantor and his community property.
Our client was the incumbent contractor performing armed security guard services at various locations for the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”). When that contract neared the end of its term, BPA issued a new solicitation for the work.