When a contractor falls behind schedule, it is common for a public project owner to send a “cure notice.” The contractor must show how it will get on the path to timely completion. There is an implicit threat of termination for default, but the government can’t terminate prior to the contractual completion deadline unless the contractor has no reasonable likelihood of timely completion. What happens when a contractor responds to a cure notice with a proposed “revised schedule” that indicates completion after the deadline?
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that such a response was a breach of contract. Rather than showing how it would achieve timely completion of the work, the contractor repudiated its contractual obligation to do so. There was no evidence of excusable delay, and the government could default the contractor without a showing of no reasonable likelihood.
The second case in this issue involved a prime contractor’s sponsorship of a subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the federal government. The prime contractor said it had no reason to believe the sub’s claim pricing was incorrect. This did not meet the standard for certifying a sponsored subcontractor claim; however, the defective certification could be corrected. The contractor and subcontractor could proceed with appeal of the government’s denial of the claim.
The third case comes from the New Hampshire Supreme Court. A contract stated the change order clause could not be waived by failure to strictly conform to the change order process. There had been a waiver nonetheless—the parties had not just deviated from the process; they had persistently ignored it altogether.
