Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Sure, I Got an Award, But I’m Mad Someone Else Did Too. Can I Protest? • Low Price, High Drama: Did the Navy Cut Corners on the Price Analysis? • Shadow AI in Government Contract Proposal Evaluations: Emerging Bid Protest Risks for Federal Contractors • Five Percent to Stay Quiet: How the New “Loser Pays” Rule Discourages Legitimate Procurement Challenges • Rule of Two supports small businesses in contracts ⚖️

Contractor Argued Burst Pipe Was an Act of God. Why Did CBCA Think There Was a More Earthly Explanation?

The government claimed the contractor was liable for damage caused by a burst pipe. The contractor said the burst pipe was an Act of God. The CBCA rejected the argument. The burst was caused by the contractor’s failure to take any steps to prevent frozen pipes. 

United Facility Service Corporation v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7618 
  • Burst Pipe - The contractor provided maintenance services at a federal courthouse. After a period of record-cold temperatures, a pipe in the courthouse froze and burst. The courthouse was flooded causing hundreds of thousands in damages. 
  • Government Claim – The government claimed the contractor was liable for damages to the building. The contractor appealed to CBCA. The government argued the contractor had breached its obligation to respond to emergency calls within 30 minutes. The board granted the government summary judgment on this theory, finding the contractor’s staff had taken hours to respond to the call for the burst pipe. The board then held a hearing on whether the contractor had breached a separate duty to exercise reasonable care in preventing a burst pipe. 
  • Contractor Breached – The contract expressly required the contractor to prevent damage to equipment during inclement weather. But the contractor made no effort to monitor pipes or attempt to reduce the possibility they would freeze. The contractor could have used temporary heaters or tarps to prevent freezing. It did nothing. The contractor breached. 
  • Act of God? - The contractor argued the cold temperatures and the burst pipe were Acts of God—that is an unanticipated natural disaster that could not have been prevented. 
  • Supervening Negligence – The board rejected the Act of God defense. A contractor cannot blame an Act of God for its failure to meet contractual obligations. Here, the contractor made no effort to avoid frozen pipes, despite knowing that insulation could’ve prevented the burst. 

The contractor is represented by William Weisberg of the Law Offices of Williams Weisberg PLLC. The agency is represented by Justin S. Hawkins of the General Services Administration 

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief 

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.