Hoel-Steffen Construction Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims
456 F.2d 760, 197 Ct. Cl. 561, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29 (1972)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A contractor provides sufficient notice under a 'Suspension of Work' clause by informing the contracting officer in writing of the acts causing delay, even if the notice does not formally invoke the clause or state a monetary claim, so long as it alerts the government to the problem and its duty to act.

Facts:

The U.S. Interior Department contracted with Hoel-Steffen Construction Company (Hoel-Steffen) to install interior features, including air ducts, in the Gateway Arch.
Two other contractors, MacDonald Construction Company and Planet Corporation, were also working in the same confined interior space of the Arch's leg.
Hoel-Steffen began its ductwork in mid-April 1966.
A strike, for which the government was not responsible, halted work from July 1, 1966, to mid-September 1966.
After resuming work on September 23, 1966, Hoel-Steffen alleged it was delayed because the government gave priority access to the other contractors.
In early October 1966, Hoel-Steffen sent two letters and made oral complaints to government representatives regarding interference from the other contractors.
In response, the government increased its participation in coordinating the work and issued a Change Order acknowledging that Hoel-Steffen's progress had been 'slowed by another contractor.'

Procedural Posture:

Hoel-Steffen Construction Company (plaintiff) presented a claim for extra costs to the contracting officer at the Department of the Interior.
The claim was considered and rejected by the Interior Board of Contract Appeals.
Hoel-Steffen filed suit against the United States (defendant) in the United States Court of Claims, seeking review of the Board's decision.

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 a contractor's written notification to the government about delays caused by another contractor, which prompts government involvement, satisfy the 20-day notice requirement of a 'Suspension of Work' clause, even if it does not explicitly reference that clause or make a formal monetary claim?

Opinions:

Majority - Davis, Judge

Yes, a contractor's written notification satisfies the notice requirement of the 'Suspension of Work' clause if it puts the government on notice of the conduct causing the delay. The court distinguished between the clause's two notice requirements: (1) an initial notice within 20 days of the 'act or failure to act' causing delay, and (2) a formal monetary claim asserted later. The purpose of the first notice is not to file a formal claim, but to alert procurement officials to the problem so they can gather data and evaluate whether to continue the delay-causing conduct. Here, Hoel-Steffen's letters of October 10th and 11th, complaining of interference, fulfilled this purpose. These letters, combined with government meetings and a subsequent Change Order acknowledging the delay, made it clear the government knew of the problem and its contractual duty to resolve disputes between contractors. The court held that notice provisions should not be applied so 'technically and illiberally' as to deny a claim when the government is fully aware of the operative facts.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the notice requirements in standard government 'Suspension of Work' clauses, favoring a practical over a hyper-technical interpretation. It establishes that the initial notice of delay does not need to be a formal claim invoking the specific clause, but rather a communication of the factual circumstances causing the delay. This lowers the procedural burden on contractors and prevents the government from using minor procedural omissions to defeat otherwise meritorious claims for delay costs. The ruling reinforces the principle that the purpose of notice is to make the government aware of a problem it needs to address, and once aware, it cannot later claim lack of notice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hoel-Steffen Construction Co. v. United States (1972)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature