Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



6 min read

Navigating the Legal Battle: A Contract Dispute with F&D and USACE


Legal Battle and Delays: F&D vs. USACE in Contract Dispute

A "legal battle" refers to a dispute or conflict that is being resolved through legal proceedings, such as litigation or arbitration. It typically involves two or more parties who are in disagreement over a legal matter and seek the intervention of a court or similar authority to determine the outcome. Legal battles can arise in various areas of law, including contract disputes, personal injury claims, family law matters, criminal cases, and many others. The parties involved may engage in negotiations, present arguments and evidence, and ultimately rely on the decision of a judge, jury, or arbitrator to settle the dispute.

In this ongoing legal battle over a contract dispute, the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (F&D) is embroiled in a legal battle against the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) over monetary compensation for alleged delays. The dispute revolves around a task order contract specifically for the design and construction of transient quarters and dining facilities at the Naval Support Activity Bahrain. As tensions escalate, F&D, acting as ECC's surety, has taken control of the project after the USACE terminated the original contractor due to their failure to meet construction progress schedules.

Determined to see the project through to completion, F&D appointed Vertex as the replacement completion contractor. In September 2016, Vertex diligently obtained a dig permit to ensure compliance with the necessary regulations and proceed with the remaining site utility work.

A Path to Equitable Resolution of Government Contract Disputes

Unfortunately, the situation took a disappointing turn in December 2016 when the USACE's project engineer verbally ordered Vertex to cease all exterior electrical work. This sudden stop-work order introduced significant delays to the project's timeline and progress. Vertex, eager to move forward, made multiple requests for new dig permits to adapt to the evolving circumstances. Regrettably, their efforts were met with either silence from the USACE or a lack of approval for their permit requests.

These roadblocks not only obstructed the project's progress but also raised concerns about the USACE's handling of the situation. F&D, acting in the best interests of all parties involved, strives to resolve the dispute and ensure that the project is successfully completed. Despite the challenges faced, F&D remains committed to fulfilling its obligations as ECC's surety and delivering the necessary support to Vertex in their pursuit of project completion.

It is essential to recognize the significance of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) in this complex legal scenario. Enacted by the United States Congress in 1978, the CDA provides a framework for resolving contract disputes between the government and contractors. Under the CDA, contractors have the right to file claims for damages stemming from contract-related disputes.

The Importance of Fairness and Justice in Contract Disputes

Given the circumstances, F&D may explore the option of filing a claim under the CDA to seek compensation for the delays and disruptions caused by the USACE's actions. By utilizing the CDA's mechanisms, F&D aims to protect its rights and interests while upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

The outcome of this contract dispute holds significant implications not only for F&D and the USACE but also for other government contractors. It serves as a crucial example of the challenges that can arise during the execution of government contracts and highlights the importance of effective communication, adherence to regulations, and fair treatment by all parties involved.

As the dispute evolves, the involvement of legal professionals, such as contract attorneys, becomes crucial. These experts possess in-depth knowledge of government contract law, the CDA, and relevant precedents set by federal courts. They play a vital role in advising F&D and Vertex on the best course of action, ensuring that their rights are protected, and advocating for a fair resolution to the dispute.

Implications for Government Contractors and the Importance of Legal Professionals

The contract dispute between Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and the United States Army Corps of Engineers revolves around alleged delays in a task order contract for the design and construction of facilities at the Naval Support Activity Bahrain. F&D, as the surety, appointed Vertex as the replacement contractor and obtained the necessary permits for the project. However, a stop-work order and subsequent lack of permit approval by the USACE introduced significant delays. F&D is actively exploring options such as filing a claim under the Contract Disputes Act to seek compensation for the interruptions. This case serves as a valuable lesson in the complexities of government contracting and the importance of effective resolution mechanisms like the CDA. Legal professionals also play a significant role in guiding the parties involved towards a fair resolution.

Recognizing the significant setbacks caused by the USACE's actions, F&D submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer in March 2021. This detailed claim asserted damages amounting to $1,604,384.24, reflecting the financial impact of the delays imposed upon the project. Additionally, F&D included a request for a 146-day contract extension to compensate for the time lost due to the USACE's actions.

According to F&D's narrative, they firmly believe that the USACE bears responsibility for the delays incurred. Specifically, they point to the issuance of the stop-work order, the USACE's failure to respond to permit requests, and the implementation of non-contractual duration restrictions on critical utility work. Their argument contends that these actions directly led to the significant disruptions experienced during the project's execution.

F&D Prevails as Judge Rejects USACE's Attempt to Dismiss Appeal

However, the USACE has countered F&D's claims with a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Their primary argument centers around F&D's alleged failure to provide specific monetary amounts for each of the seven separate claims they have made. According to the USACE, these claims must be treated as wholly distinct entities, each requiring its own individual evaluation and consideration.

F&D, steadfast in their belief, maintains that these seven events are not isolated incidents but rather integral components of a single, interconnected set of operative facts. They argue that the damages incurred cannot be adequately assessed by isolating each claim but must be viewed holistically to understand the full impact on the project.

Following thorough consideration, the administrative judge presiding over the case has denied the USACE's motion to dismiss. The judge's binding ruling recognizes that F&D's claims share a common foundation, as they all originate from the same cohesive set of operative facts. This pivotal decision allows F&D to proceed with their appeal, enabling them to continue their pursuit of monetary damages for the alleged delays caused by the USACE.


The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (F&D) finds itself entangled in a complex and ongoing contract dispute with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Their objective is clear: to secure rightful compensation for the numerous delays they allege were caused by the actions of the USACE. Amidst legal maneuvers and jurisdictional debates, F&D is determined to hold the USACE accountable for their contributions to the project's setbacks. With the case proceeding, F&D remains resolute in their pursuit of justice, rooted in their belief that the delays could have been avoided with proper diligence and adherence to contractual obligations.

More on the CDA

  • The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is a pivotal piece of legislation that governs the resolution of contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors. Enacted by the United States Congress in 1978, the CDA provides a framework to ensure fair and efficient resolution of disputes, maintaining the integrity of government contracts.
  • Central to the CDA is the role of the contracting officer, who serves as the point of contact and decision-maker throughout the dispute resolution process. The contracting officer plays a crucial role in interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract, assessing claims made by the contractor, and ultimately rendering a final decision on disputes.
  • Contract disputes can arise from a variety of sources, such as disagreements over contract specifications, issues with payment or performance, changes to the project scope, or disputes regarding contract interpretation. When a dispute arises, the contractor must submit a claim in writing to the contracting officer, outlining the basis of the dispute and providing supporting evidence.
  • Promptly upon receiving the claim, the contracting officer is obligated to acknowledge its receipt and thoroughly review its merits. This review process involves a careful examination of the facts, legal arguments, and any contractual provisions relevant to the dispute. The contracting officer's decision, which must be provided in writing within a specified timeframe, will address the validity of the claim and any recommended actions or remedies.
  • If the contractor is dissatisfied with the contracting officer's decision, they have the right to appeal the decision. The CDA allows for the appeal to be made to specialized boards or courts, such as the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA). These independent adjudicatory bodies carefully consider the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, ensuring a fair and impartial review of the dispute.
  • In addition to the formal appeals process, the CDA encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as mediation or arbitration, to foster more collaborative and efficient resolution of disputes. ADR can offer parties a less adversarial forum to explore mutually agreeable solutions, potentially reducing costs and preserving business relationships.
  • It is worth noting that the CDA includes provisions to protect contractors' rights and interests. For instance, contractors are entitled to receive interest on any claims granted, ensuring fair compensation for delays or damages incurred. Moreover, the CDA allows for the recovery of attorney fees and expenses associated with pursuing a claim, providing