W. H. Edwards Engineering Corp. v. United States
1963 WL 8578, 161 Ct. Cl. 322 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where the government drafts ambiguous contract specifications that are reasonably interpreted by a contractor, that interpretation will be adopted, and the government's subsequent interference with that interpretation constitutes a constructive change entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment.
Facts:
- In 1952, during the Korean War, the U.S. Army contracted for the rehabilitation of the three-boiler central heating plant at the Hoosier Ordnance Plant, a facility critical for ammunition production.
- W. H. Edwards Engineering Corporation (Edwards) was a subcontractor invited to bid on the project.
- The government-drafted specifications did not expressly state whether the entire heating plant could be shut down simultaneously during the rehabilitation.
- The specifications required Edwards to submit a 'complete schedule of the materials proposed to be used' before starting installation, which Edwards interpreted as requiring a full plant shutdown to properly assess the work.
- Edwards prepared and submitted its bid in good faith on the assumption that it would be permitted to shut down all three boilers simultaneously for a period of 45-60 days to perform the work efficiently.
- A representative for another bidder was orally told that only one boiler could be shut down at a time, but Edwards' representative was not so instructed or did not understand this directive.
- After Edwards began work, the Army refused to permit a complete shutdown of the plant, requiring at least one boiler to remain operational at all times.
- This refusal forced Edwards to perform the work in a piecemeal fashion, which was more time-consuming and costly than the method upon which it had based its bid.
Procedural Posture:
- After completing the work under protest, W. H. Edwards Engineering Corporation filed a claim with the government's contracting officer for an equitable adjustment to cover its increased costs.
- The contracting officer denied the claim, finding that the contract did not require a complete shutdown.
- Edwards appealed the contracting officer's decision to the Corps of Engineers Claims and Appeals Board.
- The Claims and Appeals Board denied the appeal, affirming the contracting officer's decision and stating it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for delay.
- Edwards then filed suit in the U.S. Court of Claims seeking recovery for its additional costs.
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 permit a complete shutdown of a heating plant for rehabilitation constitute a constructive change to the contract, entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment, when the government-drafted contract did not expressly prohibit a shutdown and contained provisions that the contractor reasonably interpreted as contemplating one?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Judge
Yes. The government's refusal to permit a complete shutdown constituted a constructive change to the contract, entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment. The court reasoned that while the parties had a mutual misunderstanding of the contract terms, both of their interpretations were reasonable. In such cases, the doctrine of contra proferentem applies, which holds that where the government drafts an ambiguous contract, the ambiguity is construed against the drafter. The specifications not only were silent on a complete shutdown but also contained clauses, such as requiring a 'complete schedule' of materials, that made the contractor's interpretation of a shutdown being permissible a reasonable one. By impeding the contractor's performance under its reasonable interpretation, the government effectively changed the contract and is liable for the resulting increase in costs.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the contra proferentem doctrine in government contract law, establishing that ambiguities in government-drafted solicitations will be construed against the government. It underscores the principle that the government bears the risk of ambiguity when it drafts the contract terms. The decision protects contractors who rely on a reasonable interpretation of unclear specifications and reinforces the government's obligation to be explicit if it requires a specific, and potentially more costly, method of performance, even when national security interests are involved.
Unlock the full brief for W. H. Edwards Engineering Corp. v. United States