United States: A Deal You Can't Refuse: North American Landscaping And Voiding A Signed Release Because Of Duress

As a general rule, when a contractor signs a full settlement and release with respect to a dispute with the Government, the dispute is considered settled, and the Government is released from any further liability for that particular claim. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. One rare exception is when the Government subjects the contractor to duress, which may render the release null and void. In a remarkable decision, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently voided a release for precisely this reason and sustained an appeal where there was evidence of a pattern of improper procurement practices, abuse of discretion in the administration of the contract, and a breach of the Government's duty of good faith and fair dealing. The ASBCA also made a point of scolding the procurement and contracting officials who treated a struggling small business in such an appalling manner.

Bid Opening, Pre-Award Protest, and Award

In North American Landscaping, Construction, and Dredging, Co., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 60235 et al., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Agency) solicited sealed bids for maintenance dredging under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 14. After bid opening but prior to award, the Contracting Officer requested that one of the two bidders, North American Landscaping, Construction, and Dredging, Co., Inc. (NALCO), verify its bid because it was so low that the Agency thought there might be a mistake. The same day NALCO verified its bid, the only other bidder filed a pre-award agency-level protest arguing that NALCO's bid was "grossly unbalanced," meaning its mobilization and demobilization price was too high while the prices for the actual dredging work were too low. The Contracting Officer responded to the protest by stating that she determined the bid was mathematically, but not materially, unbalanced and therefore posed no risk of overpayment by the Government. Accordingly, she recommended dismissal of the protest.

While the protest was pending, the Agency informed NALCO that its proposed dredge was too small for the project and told NALCO to propose a larger dredge or else its bid would be rejected. NALCO offered a larger dredge and requested to increase its bid price. The Agency accepted the larger dredge but refused to increase the bid price. The Agency then denied the other bidder's protest and awarded the contract to NALCO.

Constructive Change

The day after contract award, the Agency learned that a neighboring country club would be building a stone revetment (a slanted sea wall to prevent erosion) in the disposal area of the dredging zone. The solicitation made no mention of this revetment work, and the parties did not discuss the revetment at the preconstruction meeting. Although the neighboring revetment work necessarily would adversely impact NALCO's dredging, the Agency directed NALCO to continue work as planned. NALCO kept the Agency apprised of the significant interference experienced as a result of the revetment work.

Dispute over Mobilization Payment

NALCO's bid included a lump-sum priced contract line item number (CLIN) for mobilization and demobilization and the clause at DFARS 252.236-7004. That clause provided that the Government would pay NALCO 60 percent of the mobilization/demobilization lump sum early in the contract for mobilization, and the remaining 40 percent of the lump sum after demobilization was complete at the end of the contract.

Soon after award, however, the Contracting Officer invoked the optional paragraph (b) of DFARS 252.236-7004. This paragraph allows an Agency, in its discretion, to require a contractor to submit cost data to justify the percentages of the CLIN that the contractor's bid asserted correspond to mobilization and demobilization. The Contracting Officer stated that, if NALCO failed to justify its mobilization/demobilization price to her satisfaction, NALCO would receive only actual costs incurred at the completion of mobilization and demobilization, respectively, with the remainder to be paid at the end of the contract. NALCO, however, based its bid on the assumption that, when it entered into the contract, it would receive 60 percent of its mobilization and demobilization lump-sum CLIN price up front, which it would then use to finance performance, including the purchase of necessary equipment. NALCO submitted the requested justification, but the Contracting Officer was not satisfied.

Several weeks after contract award, NALCO submitted an invoice for 60 percent of the contract's mobilization/demobilization CLIN price. The Contracting Officer, however, refused to allow any equipment costs as part of the mobilization payment, resulting in a payment $700,000 lower than what NALCO had invoiced. NALCO informed the Agency that, without up-front payment of its equipment costs, it would suffer severe financial hardship, performance would be endangered, and the company might go bankrupt. The Agency again refused to budge.

NALCO's president attempted to finance performance himself by taking out a personal loan using his home and equipment as collateral, and he borrowed $100,000 from members of his church just to make payroll. He eventually lost his house, equipment, and business to his creditors.

Performance Problems and No-Cost Termination

As NALCO had predicted, it encountered significant schedule and performance impacts due to the neighboring revetment work. NALCO requested relief from the Agency, and the Agency responded with a cure notice. NALCO asked for a two-week extension as a result of delays caused by the revetment work, but the Agency threatened to terminate the contract for default and charge NALCO excess re-procurement costs if it did not finish on time.

In the end, the Agency decided not to continue with the contract, although Agency officials admitted that the work that was performed was of a high quality. NALCO entered into settlement negotiations to try to recoup some of its incurred costs, but the Agency refused to consider any costs for equipment, any costs for labor payroll during the dredging period, or any adjustment for differing site conditions. The Agency offered to pay only $375,000, even though the contractor claimed performance costs in excess of $1 million. Threatened with a termination for default, and given the financial strains endangering its very existence, NALCO had no choice but to agree to the Agency's "take it or leave it" settlement offer. Under protest, NALCO signed the modification, which expressly purported to effect final payment and release the Government from any and all claims associated with the contract.

NALCO eventually filed a certified claim, which the Contracting Officer denied. NALCO then appealed the final decision to the ASBCA.

The ASBCA's Appeal Decision

On appeal, as a preliminary observation, the Board concluded that, in the time between bid opening and award, the Agency had no right to require (or even to allow) NALCO to amend its bid to offer a larger dredge. If the bid was unacceptable as submitted (as the Agency had said), the Contracting Officer lacked the authority to accept it, with or without a "revision." Unlike under FAR Part 15's procedures for negotiated procurements, agencies are not permitted to open discussions and request proposal revisions under FAR Part 14 sealed bid procurements. Further, although the Agency determined that NALCO's bid was not materially unbalanced, the ASBCA found that it was, in fact, "grossly unbalanced." This is not a bid protest article, but these pre award missteps may have been enough for the GAO to have sustained a protest if the other bidder had gone to the GAO after the Agency denied its agency-level protest.

Next, the ASBCA made two relevant findings regarding DFARS 252.236-7004. First, before looking at whether the Contracting Officer abused her discretion in requiring actual cost justification, the ASBCA discerned a latent ambiguity in the language of the DFARS clause. The Agency and NALCO had different, yet reasonable interpretations of what constitutes a reasonable relation to "the cost of work" in the contract. NALCO believed "the cost of work" for "mobilization" included its plant and equipment costs, whereas the Agency interpreted the same language to exclude equipment costs. After examining parole evidence to no avail, the ASBCA interpreted the ambiguity contra proferentemi.e., against the Government as the drafter of the clause – thus giving effect to NALCO's interpretation. The Board also noted that the Contracting Officer knowingly accepted NALCO's "grossly unbalanced bid." This suggested the Government understood exactly what NALCO thought it was agreeing to. Second, the ASBCA determined that the Contracting Officer abused her discretion in requiring actual cost justification per DFARS 252.236-7004(b), which is optional and discretionary, because she could not provide an adequate reason for requiring it while knowing full well how it would harm the contractor and endanger performance.

The ASBCA then considered the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant requires both contracting parties to refrain from interfering with the other's performance and "not to act so as to destroy the reasonable expectations of the other party regarding the fruits of the contract." Centex Corp. v. United States, 395 F.3d 1283, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In its review of the Agency's behavior, the ASBCA determined that by demanding a larger dredge at no additional cost to the Government, transmitting emails in which Agency officials mocked NALCO's correspondence, coercing NALCO into signing an unfair modification to avoid termination for default, and ignoring suggestions to reopen negotiations, the Agency breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Next, the ASBCA found that the unforeseen revetment work on the neighboring golf course, and the Government's direction to carry on with performance anyway, was a constructive change. The Government should have, but did not, equitably adjust the contract's schedule and price to account for this change to the work the contractor was required to perform.

Finally, and most remarkably, the ASBCA determined that the Contracting Officer's threat to terminate the contractor for default if it did not agree to a take-it-or-leave-it settlement offer was improper and, in light of NALCO's debilitated circumstances, amounted to duress. To succeed on a duress claim and render a contract or other agreement unenforceable, a party must establish that "(1) it involuntarily accepted [the other party's] terms, (2) circumstances permitted no other alternative, and (3) such circumstances were the result of [the other party's] coercive acts." Dureiko v. United States, 209 F.3d 1345, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The ASBCA held that NALCO, which was on the brink of bankruptcy due to the Government's improper administration of this contract, involuntarily accepted the Agency's harsh terms rather than receive no payment at all and face an improper default termination. As a result, the settlement's release became void and unenforceable and not a bar to NALCO's claim. The ASBCA then sustained the majority of the appeal as to entitlement, and remanded the case to the parties to determine quantum.

Conclusions and Caveats

This decision's holdings are not unusual on constructive changes, default, or even abuse of discretion and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The decision is unusual, though, for a couple of reasons.

First, the Government is not in the habit of awarding contracts to bidders with grossly unbalanced pricing – which means no one is likely to see this fact pattern repeated. Most agencies would be very skeptical of a bid or proposal that priced the lion's share of a construction contract in up-front mobilization CLINs, rather than in the actual construction to be performed, and most would probably reject the offer as representing an unacceptable risk.

Second, contracting parties usually are held to the releases they sign. Negotiating leverage is rarely equal between the parties to a Government contract, and a duress defense almost never works in a contract dispute against the Government. Duress was found in North American Landscaping not only because of the mountain of injustices heaped upon the contractor, but also because the contractor faced an existential threat if it did not accept the Government's demonstrably unfair settlement offer and demand for a release. Extraordinary facts led to an extraordinary decision. Contractors should be very careful before signing a release in reliance on the holdings in North American Landscaping because this case's unusual facts are likely to be present in many settlement negotiations. Indeed, the existence of the signed release probably contributed in large part to the Agency's decision to litigate this appeal rather than settle.

In the end, this decision is a salutary public rebuke of an attitude that contractors are indentured servants rather than valued partners. It is impossible to read the decision without concluding that a little common sense could have avoided most, if not all, of the errors detailed in the decision – producing a win-win outcome for the Government and the contractor alike. The decision emphasizes that dissenting voices of reason within the Agency tried to intercede on the contractor's behalf, but their recommendations went unheeded. NALCO's eventual vindication may be too little, too late for NALCO, but one hopes that procurement and contracting officials will read this decision with care and avoid similar costly mistakes in the future.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions