Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, M.A. Mortenson Company, the prime contractor for an Army Corps of Engineers project, appealed a decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denying its request for an equitable adjustment. The dispute arose over the installation of manual balancing dampers in an HVAC system, where Mortenson argued that the contract's specifications allowed for selective installation, whereas the government contended that the specifications required dampers at every point where duct sizes changed. The court affirmed the board's decision, concluding that the contract specifications were clear and unambiguous, mandating installation at all specified locations. The court emphasized that the specifications took precedence over drawings in cases of discrepancy, as outlined in Contract Clause I.76. Mortenson's claim of latent ambiguity was rejected, with the court finding that any ambiguity was patent, requiring prior clarification. The ruling underscored the necessity for contractors to resolve uncertainties before bidding, as Mortenson's post-installation compliance verification indicated an awareness of potential issues. Consequently, the board's decision was upheld, denying Mortenson's claim for $297,608.
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance with Contractual Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Mortenson was required to install dampers at all specified locations as per the original contract terms.
Reasoning: The clear language of the specification mandates the installation of dampers without exceptions, undermining Mortenson's claims.
Contract Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court supports the interpretation that contract specifications take precedence over drawings when discrepancies arise.
Reasoning: Contract Clause I.76 establishes that specifications take precedence over drawings in case of discrepancies.
Equitable Adjustment Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Mortenson's request for an equitable adjustment was denied, as the contract specifications were clear and unambiguous regarding the installation requirements.
Reasoning: The board found that the contract drawings clearly mandated the installation of these dampers at all points where duct sizes changed.
Patent Ambiguity in Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that any ambiguity in the contract regarding damper installation was patent, requiring Mortenson to seek clarification before bidding.
Reasoning: Even if ambiguity regarding manual balancing dampers existed, it was considered patent, meaning the inconsistencies were evident enough to alert a reasonable contractor to seek clarification.