AB 913

This bill directs the expenditure of $8,630,650.62 from the general fund in

payment of a claim against the Department of Transportation by Walsh

Construction. The claimant entered into a contract with DOT to perform work on the

I-94 Freeway North Package Project associated with DOT project 1030-20-84. The

claimant asserted that the topsoil was significantly thicker than what was shown in

the contract documents, that several topographical errors in the project plans

necessitated the purchase of additional fill material, and that these differing site

conditions comprised an excusable, compensable delay under the contract. The

claimant asserted that it provided DOT with written notice of the differing site

conditions and that the Dispute Resolution Board unanimously recommended that

the claimant receive additional compensation for the differing site conditions and for

acceleration costs associated with 83 days of delay. DOT agreed to compensate the

claimant for the direct costs associated with the differing site conditions but refused

to provide additional compensation for the cost of acceleration, relief from liquidated

damages and disincentive pay, or additional time to complete the project. DOT

maintains that there is no language in the contract allowing for acceleration and that

DOT neither accepted the claimant's claim for acceleration nor directed the claimant

to accelerate at any stage. DOT asserted that acceleration was unnecessary because

DOT allowed numerous time and efficiency modifications to the contract. Further,

DOT disagreed with the Dispute Resolution Board's finding that the claimant was

not barred from seeking acceleration costs due to severe weather and noted that the

Dispute Resolution Board acknowledged that the contract did not provide time

extensions for severe weather. DOT maintains that it has met its obligations under

the contract by compensating the claimant for costs associated with differing site

conditions and providing appropriate schedule relief. On July 21, 2022, the claims

board denied the claim because it concluded that the claim raises questions of fact

regarding whether the claimant was entitled to a contract extension under the

circumstances that are better evaluated by a court of law. (See 2021

Senate Journal

,

p. 976.)