rejecting a more limited application of the DCLMA and finding its provisions to extend to delay damages based on the guiding principle that the DCLMA’s payment bond “was designed to protect subcontractors supplying labor and materials to a government project”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting a more limited application of the DCLMA and finding its provisions to extend to delay damages based on the guiding principle that the DCLMA’s payment bond “was designed to protect subcontractors supplying labor and materials to a government project”
- holding that an amended complaint for the balance due under a contract relates back to the original complaint for breach of that contract
- adopting the interpretation of the Federal Miller Act by this District in United States ex rel. Mariana v. Piracci Constr. Co., Inc., 405 F.Supp. 904 (D.D.C. 1975), in finding the DCLMA to allow a subcontractor to recover “delay damages”
- noting that, because amounts claimed for unpaid contract balance and for change order fluctuated throughout litigation, they were not liquidated
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I generally concur in the opinion for the court but dissent in one respect. In United States f/u/b Mariana v. Piracci Construction Co., 405 F.Supp. 904 (D.D.C.1975), the court noted that claims for delay damages must be proved “with reasonable certainty and specificity.” Id. at 907 n.7. Given this test, I do not believe the trial court’s $8,502 award of delay damages to appellee is supportable on this record.