C&H Commercial Contractors v. United States

United States Claims Court · Evidence

Evidencegovernment contract delaySuspension of Workcritical pathproof of injuryunreasonable delayaccord and satisfactionnotice to proceed

Facts

Plaintiff held a fixed-price Army Corps contract to reconstruct a runway and later sought damages for three alleged government-caused delays: late issuance of the notice to proceed, temporary unavailability of the work site due to design oversights, and delay from additional asphalt testing. The contract incorporated the Suspension of Work clause and inspection clauses requiring the contractor to maintain quality control and permitting additional testing of nonconforming work at the contractor's expense. Plaintiff produced no detailed schedules or other proof showing how the alleged delays affected overall performance, and two modifications addressed the work-site and asphalt matters, each containing release language for costs and delays related to the change.

Issue

Did plaintiff prove entitlement to delay damages under the Suspension of Work clause for the three alleged periods of delay, and was the asphalt-testing claim barred by accord and satisfaction under a contract modification?

Rule

To recover under the Suspension of Work clause, a contractor must show that performance was delayed, the government directly caused the delay, the delay was unreasonable, and the delay caused injury in the form of increased cost or loss. A critical path analysis is not invariably required, but the contractor must present specific evidence that the government's delay affected performance or increased costs; bare allegations are insufficient. A bilateral modification with release language bars later claims when the evidence shows a mutual settlement of the disputed matter, including impacts and delay costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maple Crest Builders held a fixed-price federal contract to repave an apron at a military site near Dayton, Ohio. The agency issued the notice to proceed 24 days later than the contractor expected, but Maple Crest's own preconstruction bar chart showed paving was not scheduled to begin until the week it actually began, and Maple Crest kept no updated schedules or cost analysis tying the later notice to added expense.

If Maple Crest seeks delay damages under a Suspension of Work clause, what is the strongest argument against recovery?

Explanation. To recover under the Suspension of Work clause, the contractor must prove delay, direct government causation, unreasonableness, and injury through added expense or loss. The majority explained that a late notice to proceed is not compensable by itself, and bare allegations are insufficient; the contractor must present specific evidence showing project impact or increased costs. Here, the contractor's own schedule shows work started when planned, and it has no concrete impact proof. (Derived from C&H Commercial Contractors v. United States (n.d.).)