Case Abstract
In this case, Holloway Consulting served as the contractor’s construction expert on slurry wall construction litigation with the Water District (“the District”). The essence of the case was that undisclosed subsurface conditions slowed the Contractor’s work, causing it to operate inefficiently and incur additional costs. When the Contractor submitted claims for those costs, the District wrongfully terminated the Contractor, and a follow-on contractor completed the work. The plaintiff Contractor then filed suit seeking recovery of its wrongful termination and termination for convenience damages.
The project comprised a hydraulic barrier, soil-bentonite slurry wall, and associated working platform around the lake’s perimeter. A slurry wall is a non-structural barrier constructed underground and extending into the bedrock to impede groundwater flow. A “working platform” with interim slope was built on a T&M basis ahead of the slurry wall, creating a level surface to accommodate the equipment required for construction.
The Contract Documents indicated the use of the trench spoils in the soil-bentonite backfill, and these soil conditions were critical to trench wall stability and the rate at which the trench could be excavated. As a result of the District’s flawed geotechnical investigation/ boring logs, the subsurface conditions encountered materially differed from those that were and could have been reasonably anticipated by the Contractor.
Damages – Termination for Convenience
Based on the facts disclosed, combined with Holloway’s construction project experiences over the past forty years, particularly those involving terminated construction contracts and attempts to convert terminations for convenience to terminations for cause, the Contractor’s damages were calculated using the termination for convenience provisions of the Contract. These provisions provided for the Contractor’s recovery of its actual costs incurred, plus bond, insurance costs, and markup (overhead and profit), less the payments made to the Contractor by the District.
The case was settled to our client’s satisfaction on the courthouse steps.