Fragmentary networks, or fragnets, are an isolated section of a project schedule affected by a specific event, such as a change or delay. They can be inserted into a critical path method schedule for the entire project. Fragnets have two uses: to track the impact of an actual event and to model or test how contemplated changes will affect the planned work.

A project owner recently conflated the two uses of fragnets. The owner contended the fragnet updates indicated the actual critical path of the work. In fact, the contractor had been modeling a contemplated change in the sequence of work. That contemplated change was abandoned as impracticable. The schedule’s critical path never changed.

The other case in this issue involves a second low bidder’s attempt to displace the low bidder. The protester argued that the low bid’s omission of certain information rendered that bid nonresponsive. Unfortunately for the protester, its bid had omitted the same information. 

A fragmentary network is a CPM modeling tool that can be used to hypothesize regarding the impact of a specific event. It does not necessarily reflect what is occurring on the ground and, in itself, does not alter the project's critical path.

A second low bidder committed the same bid deficiency that motivated its protest against the low bid. It therefore suffered no prejudice and could not maintain a protest based on bid responsiveness.

Physical conditions beneath the Earth's surface can be difficult to predict. Project owners retain a geotechnical consultant to perform soil test borings and provide the resulting boring logs to prospective bidders. But cost and restricted access limit the number and location of the borings. How much may a bidder infer from borings performed in a different section of the project? And to what extent can surface conditions alert bidders to possible problems?

The Federal Circuit recently addressed these issues on a government canal restoration project. The contractor’s inferences and assumptions relied on the boring logs from a different section of the project, but depressions in the surface should have alerted the contractor to subsidence in the area.

The second case in this issue involves a project owner’s refusal to pay for work performed by a subcontractor. The subcontractor completed the work with the owner’s knowledge and encouragement. The Arizona Supreme Court said it would be unjust for the owner to benefit from this work and pay no one for it.

The third case addresses the severity of disciplinary action against a wayward architect. The Nebraska Supreme Court said the falsification of continuing education documents warranted revoking the architect’s license for five years.

A contractor relied on soil test boring logs from other areas of the work site when it was not reasonable to do so. The contractor could not draw conclusions about site conditions from a contract provision that had been deleted prior to bid submittal.

A property owner allegedly received improvements performed by a subcontractor and paid no one for the work. The Arizona Supreme Court said that even in the absence of owner misconduct, the owner could be liable to the subcontractor for unjust enrichment. The lack of contractual privity did not insulate the owner.

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a five-year ban from practice for an architect who falsified continuing education documents.

It is common for people in the same industry or line of work to discuss business. Trade associations exist primarily to address challenges or problems common to the trade, but any discussion that includes the cost or pricing structure of individual businesses is a slippery slope.

A federal district court convicted an executive of a ready-mix concrete company for criminal conspiracy to restrain trade. The defendant tried to portray his communication with competitors as innocent trade talk. A federal appeals court, however, ruled that the evidence supported findings of price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation.

The other case in this issue involved a labor union’s ability to recover from a public works payment bond. The union alleged that a subcontractor on a job had failed to pay mandatory contributions to employee benefit plans. A Massachusetts court ruled that a collective bargaining agreement created a “contractual relationship” between the prime contractor (the principal on the payment bond) and the labor union.

A federal appeals court has ruled that although the exchange of cost or pricing information among competitors is not necessarily a criminal act, a jury may infer price fixing or bid rigging from such communication.

A Massachusetts appellate court has ruled that for purposes of public works payment bond protection, a labor union had a “contractual relationship” with the prime contractor. The union could pursue the bond for a subcontractor’s unpaid benefit plan contributions.