Construction Law Blog - Change Orders

Disclaimer: The content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided is intended for general information which may or may not reflect the most current developments. Although these materials may be prepared by legal professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. By using this website you expressly agree that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the drafter of the content of this website. If you have a question regarding a particular issue or need legal advice, please contact one of the attorneys at AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC.

The opinions or viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC any link to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites. The links provided are maintained by the respective organizations, and they are solely responsible for the content of their own sites.

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | Aug 17, 2009 | Topics: Change Orders, Construction News and Notes, Delay Claims, Government Contracts, Settlements/Releases | View Article

Bell BCI Co. v. United States - Release of Cumulative Impact Claims

Bell involved a construction contract under which the government issued an extensive series of change orders. Following the first of those change orders, the parties executed Modification 93, which stated in part the increased contract amount set forth in the Modification represented "full and equitable adjustment for the remaining direct and indirect costs of the [changed work] . . . and full and equitable adjustment for all delays resulting from any and all Government changes transmitted to the Contractor on or before August 31, 2000." Modification 93 also included the following "release" language: "the Modification agreed to herein is a fair and equitable adjustment for the Contractor's direct and indirect costs. This Modification provides full compensation for the changed work, including both Contract costs and Contract time. The Contractor hereby releases the Government, including all liability under the Contract for further equitable adjustment attributable to the Modification."

Posted By: Ryan Sternoff | Jan 02, 2008 | Topics: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Delay Claims | View Article

American Safety v. City of Olympia: Supreme Court Affirms and Clarifies Mike M. Johnson

Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed its holding in Mike M. Johnson and reversed the Division 2 Court of Appeals in Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, __ Wn.2d __, __ P.3d. __ (2007). The case again demonstrates the Washington State Supreme Court's position that contractors must strictly comply with the notice and claim procedures in their contracts, absent an "unequivocal" waiver of those procedures by the other party to the contract.

Posted By: Brett Hill | Dec 28, 2007 | Topics: Change Orders, Claims, Recent Legislation | View Article

Mike M. Johnson Legislation Update

A & C lawyers John Ahlers, Paul Cressman and Bruce Cohen have been working closely with the Association of General Contractors (AGC) on legislation to address the contractor notice forfeiture dilemma created by the Wa Supreme Court's decision in Mike M. Johnson. The Bill will be introduced in the next legislative session in January 2008. Significant ground work has been done by A &C to provide legislators and stakeholders with input on the legislative fix.

Posted By: Brett Hill | Jan 03, 2008 | Topics: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Liens/Bond Claims | View Article

Henifin Constr. v. Keystone Constr.

General contractor is the owner’s “Construction Agent” as defined under the private lien statute and, thus, subcontractor's lien for extra work authorized only by the general contractor was valid.

Posted By: Brett Hill | Jan 03, 2008 | Topics: Change Orders, Claims, Damages | View Article

American Safety v. City of Olympia

Court of Appeals clarifies waiver of contractual provisions post Mike M. Johnson. This case is no longer good law, please refer to the Supreme Court's ruling (discussed above) that overruled this case.

Posted By: Brett Hill | Jan 02, 2008 | Topics: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Delay Claims | View Article

Mike M. Johnson v. Spokane County - Contract Notice and Claim clauses are strictly enforceable

The seminal case in Washington regarding change orders and the enforceability of notice provisions in construction contracts. The Washington State Supreme Court held contractual notice provisions are strictly enforceable unless the clause has been waived by the party who benefits from the clause. The waiver must be "clear and unequivocal" for it to be valid.