Construction Services Contracts

A solid, well-negotiated and clearly documented agreement can streamline the performance of any contract and help move a project from idea to execution. Construction services contractors need legal representation with the requisite skills to get the deal done, and to quickly resolve issues when disputes arise. Troutman Sanders’ Government Procurement & Contracting practice represent general contractors, subcontractors, bonding companies and architect-engineering (A-E) firms in matters related to contract formation, contract compliance and administration, and dispute resolution and litigation.

With regard to contract formation, we prepare and negotiate teaming agreements, joint venture agreements, subcontracts, vendor terms and conditions, and help contractor teams prepare proposals and related documents such as subcontracting plans. We help companies develop and execute small business strategies for set asides in the federal small business, service-disabled veteran-owned business, 8(a) and HubZone programs. We handle Government Accountability Office (GAO), Court of Federal Claims and Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size status protests.

After a contract is awarded, we help companies address and resolve issues related to out-of-scope work, schedule delays and differing site conditions, including preparing and negotiating requests for equitable adjustments. For outside the continental United States (OCONUS) contracts performed overseas, we help contractors with compliance issues related to export control, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Defense Base Act, and local law issues, including wages, employee benefits, taxes and visas.

We litigate disputes with the government at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and related agency boards, as well as the Court of Federal Claims. We also litigate disputes against states and their agencies such as departments of transportation. We have tried disputes between prime contractors and subcontractors in federal and state courts as well as before panels constituted under the American Arbitration Associations (AAA) and JAMS (formerly Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services). We also litigate Miller Act suits and design errors suits involving A-E firms.

  • We represented a prime contractor on a Navy renovation project at a facility in Maine. The government had asserted liquidated damages of $500,000; countering this claim, we asserted delay damages and out-of-scope direct damages of $975,000 related to undisclosed asbestos and other differing site conditions. After filing at the ASBCA, the case was settled during mediation, resulting in the withdrawal of the liquidated damages claim and payment to the contractor of 82 percent of the amount sought.
  • We represented a general contractor on a project for the construction of a bridge over a river in Georgia. During construction of the protective islands around the bridge foundations, the contractor encountered differing site conditions related to subsiding construction materials. We prepared a request for equitable adjustment, filed a claim and instituted litigation. We settled the case, resulting in a 92 percent recovery of the contractors seven-figure claim.
  • We represented a general contractor in a dispute with a joint venture partner under a Navy pier demolition and reconstruction project. The joint venture partner filed for arbitration seeking $4.5 million. We counterclaimed for $1.6 million. After a hearing on the merits before a three-member panel, the joint venture partner’s claim was denied in its entirety and our counterclaim was granted in its entirety, plus the costs of the arbitration and our client’s attorneys fees.