Luria Bros. & Co. v. United States
369 F.2d 701, 177 Ct. Cl. 676 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the government provides defective specifications for a construction project, it breaches its implied warranty of constructability. This breach entitles the contractor to recover all resulting delay damages, including prorated home office overhead and reasonably proven losses in labor productivity, even if the exact amount of such losses cannot be proven with mathematical certainty.
Facts:
- On January 30, 1953, Lipsett, Inc. contracted with the U.S. Navy to build aircraft maintenance facilities based on plans and specifications provided by the government.
- The government's plans specified that the building's foundation footings were to be placed at certain elevations on rock capable of bearing a load of 15 tons per square foot, based on prior government test borings.
- After Lipsett began work and poured several footings as specified, the government's site officer expressed doubts about the soil's bearing capacity on April 15, 1953.
- The government ordered Lipsett to stop pouring footings on April 17, 1953, and to halt all foundation work on April 24, 1953, bringing the project to a standstill.
- Subsequent subsoil investigations revealed that the original plans were defective, as the ground at the specified elevations contained layers of clay and could not support the required load.
- The government issued significantly revised foundation drawings in May and July 1953, which lowered the footing elevations, changed their design to include keys, and required the removal and replacement of already-poured footings.
- The government then required Lipsett to use an inefficient 'trial and error' method of excavation, digging in small increments and waiting for inspection and approval at each stage.
- The project was ultimately completed on May 3, 1955, 518 days after the original completion date, with the extensive delays forcing construction work into adverse winter weather conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- Lipsett, Inc. submitted claims totaling $248,665.76 to the contracting officer for additional costs due to delays.
- By letter, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claims, reasoning they were for 'damages' and therefore not compensable under the contract.
- Lipsett appealed the contracting officer's decision to the Secretary of the Navy and, at the same time, submitted most of its claims to the General Accounting Office (GAO).
- The GAO issued a settlement certificate disallowing Lipsett's claims in their entirety.
- The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals then ruled that the GAO's action barred it from further considering the claims submitted to the GAO.
- Lipsett withdrew its one remaining claim from the Board's consideration and filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Claims, alleging the government breached the contract.
- An extensive trial was held before a trial commissioner of the court, who issued a report finding that the government had unreasonably delayed Lipsett by 420 days but recommended denying damages for home office overhead and loss of labor productivity.
- The government and Lipsett both filed exceptions to the trial commissioner's report, bringing the case before the full U.S. Court of Claims for a final 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 the government breach its construction contract and become liable for delay damages, including home office overhead and loss of labor productivity, when it provides defective specifications that require changes of a magnitude beyond the scope of the original contract and unreasonably delays the project?
Opinions:
Majority - Whitaker, Senior Judge
Yes, the government breached the contract and is liable for the resulting delay damages. When the government prepares specifications for a construction project, it implicitly warrants that the specifications are accurate and that satisfactory performance will result if they are followed. Here, the original specifications were defective, as they misrepresented the soil conditions. The changes required to correct these defects were of such a magnitude—requiring removal of existing work and placing footings 5 to 10 feet lower than planned—that they were outside the scope of the original contract and constituted a breach. Furthermore, the government breached its implied duty not to hinder performance by being dilatory in making revisions and by imposing an unreasonable 'trial and error' excavation method. These breaches caused 420 days of unreasonable delay, for which Lipsett is entitled to damages. These damages include not only direct costs but also home office overhead, which is a well-recognized item of damage for delay. The court also awarded damages for loss of labor productivity caused by forcing work into winter months, holding that while the amount cannot be proven with exactitude, recovery is permitted based on a 'just and reasonable inference' from expert testimony.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the government's accountability under the Spearin doctrine, confirming that the government bears the risk of its own defective design specifications. It clarifies that substantial changes necessitated by defective plans amount to a cardinal change, which is a breach of contract, rather than merely an equitable adjustment under the 'Changes' clause. The decision is particularly significant for its detailed treatment of delay damages, providing a clear precedent for contractors to recover 'unabsorbed' home office overhead using a proration formula and for recovering lost labor productivity based on expert estimates, even when precise documentation is impossible. This prevents the government from escaping liability for damages simply because the contractor cannot prove them with mathematical certainty.
