Fraser Construction Company v. United States
2004 WL 2152310, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20338, 384 F.3d 1354 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government contractor's claim for constructive acceleration requires proof that it was entitled to specific, ungranted time extensions for excusable delays, and such a claim will fail if the delays were caused by the contractor's own foreseeable design failures.
Facts:
- The Army Corps of Engineers contracted Fraser Construction Company to excavate a lakebed as part of a flood control project.
- Fraser's plan involved diverting a river by constructing an earthen dike designed to withstand a water flow of 800 cubic feet per second (cfs).
- Before work began, the Corps warned Fraser that its dike design was susceptible to damage from water flows that were anticipated to occur during the project's timeframe.
- Due to heavy rains, the river experienced multiple high-flow events exceeding 800 cfs, which repeatedly overtopped and damaged Fraser's dike.
- The recurring destruction of the dike caused the excavation site to be flooded for extended periods, leading to significant project delays.
- Fraser requested time extensions and financial adjustment, asserting the high water flows were an unforeseeable condition.
- The Corps granted 30 days of extensions for specific adverse weather events but refused to grant extensions for delays it attributed to the failure of Fraser's dike system.
- During the project, the Corps sent Fraser letters expressing concern about the lack of progress, urging adherence to the schedule, and threatening termination of the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Fraser Construction Company submitted a claim for constructive acceleration to the Army Corps of Engineers contracting officer.
- The contracting officer denied Fraser's claim.
- Fraser filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, which serves as the trial court for this type of dispute.
- The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the government.
- Fraser appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a full trial.
- Following an eight-day trial, the Court of Federal Claims again found in favor of the government, holding that Fraser had failed to prove its constructive acceleration claim.
- Fraser, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's final decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's refusal to grant a contractor's general request for a work suspension due to high water flows, while granting specific extensions for weather-affected days and urging adherence to the contract schedule, constitute constructive acceleration when the contractor's own inadequately designed dike contributed to the flooding delays?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryson, Circuit Judge.
No. The government's conduct did not constitute constructive acceleration because the contractor failed to prove it was entitled to more time extensions than it received and because its own design flaws were a primary cause of the delays. To succeed on a constructive acceleration claim, a contractor must prove it encountered an excusable delay, made a timely and sufficient request for a specific extension, the government denied the request, the government insisted on the original completion date, and the contractor incurred additional costs. Here, Fraser failed to meet its burden. The court found that the dike overtopping was foreseeable given its design, so the resulting delays were not fully 'excusable.' Furthermore, Fraser's broad request to suspend work for the entire summer was insufficient; it needed to prove entitlement to particular days for which an extension was improperly denied. Since the Corps did grant 30 days of weather-related extensions and Fraser failed to prove it was entitled to more, and the government's pressure to adhere to the schedule was reasonable given the circumstances, the claim for constructive acceleration fails.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof on a contractor alleging constructive acceleration against the government. It clarifies that a contractor cannot recover for delays it has caused through its own foreseeable design flaws, as these are not considered 'excusable delays' under the contract. The ruling emphasizes the need for contractors to make specific, particularized requests for time extensions rather than general demands for work suspension. This precedent guides future government contract disputes by underscoring that government pressure to maintain a project schedule is not, by itself, an order to accelerate, especially when the contractor has not established a clear right to a specific excusable delay.
Unlock the full brief for Fraser Construction Company v. United States