Government Contracting Database

The Boards of Contract Appeals have held that an inadequate site access (i.e., road too narrow for contractor’s equipment) is a constructive change. Appeal of: Flippo Constr. Co., Inc., DCCAB No. D – 1422, (D.C.C.A.B. June 9, 2017); Southern Paving Corporation, AGBCA No. 74 – 103, 77 – 2 BCA ¶ 12,813. Further, actions restricting access have been held compensable, where the government warranted the availability of a particular site access. Appeal of: Flippo Constr. Co., Inc., DCCAB No. D – 1422, (D.C.C.A.B. June 9, 2017); Carl W. Linder Co., ENGBCA No. 3526, 78 – 1 BCA ¶ 13,114.

Case law is clear that where owner-imposed conditions restrict, but do not preclude, a contractor’s access to the project site, thereby requiring the contractor to “hopscotch” and work in a piecemeal fashion, the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment for its decreased productivity and increased costs. Flex – Y – Plan Industries. Inc., GSBCA No. 4117, 76 – 1 BCA ¶ 11,713; Reliance Enterprises, ASBCA No. 20808, 76 – 1 BCA ¶ 11,831; Robert McMullan & Sons Inc., ASBCA No. 19129, 76 – 2 BCA ¶ 12,072.

It has been held that the government is liable for damages where it breaches its obligation to make the site available to the contractor and the contractor is prevented from commencing performance of its work. Appeal of Henderson, Inc., DOTCAB No. 2423, 94 – 2 BCA ¶ 26728; L.L. Hall Constr. Co. v. United States, 379 F.2d 559 (Ct. C1. 1966); Renel Constr. Co., GSBCA No. 5175, 80 – 2 BCA ¶ 14,811.

Updated: July 30, 2018