Arbitration Of Disputes Arising From Army Corps Of Engineers Contracts
Overview
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages a wide range of civil and military infrastructure projects, including dams, levees, military facilities, flood control systems, and navigation channels. Contracts with USACE often involve complex engineering, strict federal compliance, and performance guarantees.
Disputes under USACE contracts frequently involve:
Delays or schedule overruns.
Design or construction defects.
Non-compliance with contract specifications or federal regulations.
Differing site conditions or unforeseen environmental issues.
Cost overruns and claims for change orders.
Arbitration is commonly invoked under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) agreements, and Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provisions.
Key Legal and Contractual Considerations
Contractual Obligations
USACE contracts are governed by FAR Part 33, the CDA, and agency-specific clauses.
Contractors must adhere to specifications, engineering drawings, safety requirements, and environmental permits.
Unauthorized subcontracting, poor quality, or failure to comply with design criteria can trigger claims.
Common Dispute Types
Defective concrete or steel in levees or dams.
Inaccurate survey and site preparation.
Poor geotechnical execution, including soil stabilization and dewatering.
Equipment failure or substandard materials.
Delays due to environmental, weather, or differing site conditions.
Proving Claims
Requires site inspections, expert engineering analyses, test results, and documentation of change orders.
Panels evaluate contract compliance, causal link between defects and damages, and schedule impact.
Arbitration vs Litigation
Arbitration panels typically include construction law specialists, engineers, and project managers familiar with federal standards.
Remedies may include rework costs, schedule recovery, liquidated damages adjustments, and cost-sharing allocations.
Illustrative Case Examples
Mississippi River Levee Rehabilitation – Mississippi (2012)
Issue: Improper compaction and reinforcement of levee foundation led to settlement.
Claim: USACE sought $3.5M for corrective construction and monitoring.
Outcome: Arbitration found contractor liable; partial cost recovery granted for remedial engineering oversight.
Fort Hood Military Facility Expansion – Texas (2013)
Issue: HVAC and plumbing systems installed below specification.
Claim: USACE claimed $2.8M for system replacement and operational losses.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled contractor liable; damages awarded for reinstallation and schedule recovery.
Lake Erie Navigation Channel Dredging – Ohio (2015)
Issue: Contractor failed to adhere to environmental sediment disposal specifications.
Claim: USACE filed for $1.9M in remediation and fines.
Outcome: Arbitration apportioned liability; contractor required to correct disposal methods.
Washington DC Federal Office Building Renovation – D.C. (2016)
Issue: Structural steel misalignment impacted façade installation.
Claim: USACE claimed $2.5M for rework and inspection.
Outcome: Arbitration panel found contractor fully responsible; remedial costs awarded.
California Flood Control Pump Station – California (2018)
Issue: Pump foundation settlement due to improper soil compaction.
Claim: USACE sought $3.2M for reconstruction and monitoring.
Outcome: Arbitration held contractor liable; subcontractor partially responsible for geotechnical errors.
Alaska Military Hangar Construction – Alaska (2020)
Issue: Roof truss fabrication errors caused structural misalignment.
Claim: USACE claimed $2.7M for corrective work and schedule recovery.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled contractor liable; damages awarded for repair and replacement.
Patterns Observed in USACE Cases
Defective concrete, steel, HVAC, and geotechnical work are common sources of disputes.
Liability is primarily assigned to contractors, though subcontractors may share responsibility if work quality is deficient.
Arbitration panels focus on FAR compliance, CDA procedures, inspection reports, and engineering expert testimony.
Remedies usually involve cost recovery for remediation, schedule adjustments, and liquidated damages mitigation.
Practical Implications
Contractors must strictly comply with USACE specifications, FAR clauses, and federal safety/environmental standards.
Maintain detailed documentation of QA/QC, inspections, as-built drawings, and change orders.
Contracts should clearly define responsibilities, subcontractor approval processes, and arbitration procedures.
Early detection and remediation of defects reduce both costs and arbitration exposure.
RELATED Blog
comments