Bonds Required to Guarantee a Construction Contract Even when Solicitation Was Silent on Bonding Requirements

February 2019

Bonds guaranteeing aspects of a contractor’s performance cost money. The cost of bonding is typically included or excluded from a contractor’s bid depending on whether an owner asks that the bonding be provided in its solicitation or request for proposal. Generally, if an owner’s solicitation does not expressly require the provision of bonds, a contractor will not have to provide bonds if it is awarded the contract.

As we learned in late 2018, however, this is not true for many Federal construction contracts.

On November 5, 2018, in K-Con, Inc. v. Sec'y of Army, 908 F.3d 719, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ decision that bonding requirements were mandatory in two government construction contracts – even though the government’s solicitation did not expressly include a bonding requirement and the solicitation did not refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that requires bonds be provided.

In K-Con, the Army solicited quotations for the design and construction of a laundry facility and the construction of a communications equipment shelter. K-Con was awarded the two contracts in September 2013. In October 2013, the Army asked K-Con to provide performance and payment bonds before the Army would proceed. K-Con provided the bonds almost two years later. K-Con then asked for the costs it incurred as a result of the two-year delay in performance. The contracting officer denied the request on the basis that the bond requirements “were incorporated into the contracts at the time they were awarded.” On appeal, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals agreed with the contracting officer.

In its Opinion, the Federal Circuit noted the Standard Form 1449 Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items did not include an express requirement that performance and payment bonds be provided. The Court noted, however, that under a Federal doctrine known as the “Christian doctrine,” a court may insert a clause into a government contract by operation of law if (1) the clause is mandatory and (2) it expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy.

In reaching the first prong of the Christian doctrine, the Court found that because the Miller Act “explicitly states that the bonds ‘must’ be furnished, and the FAR both requires the bonds and directs insertion of the relevant clause” the bond requirements were mandatory. In reaching the second prong of the Christian doctrine, the Court concluded that based upon the Miller Act’s long-standing existence and legislative history, payment and performance bond requirements are “deeply ingrained” in procurement policy.

K-Con is just another example of a statute changing the terms of an otherwise clear construction agreement. Many state and federal laws supplant and supplement terms in construction agreements. If you have questions regarding a potential construction agreement, or how a construction agreement will be interpreted under applicable law, please contact someone from Lewis Rice’s Construction Law Department.

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

Have You Done Your Annual CCPA Housekeeping?

More
Client Alert

New York State Regulator Discourages Ransomware Payments and Publishes New Cyber Insurance Risk Framework

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Discusses Vaccination Considerations for Employees in Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Article

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond’s Article on Waivers of Consequential Damages is Published in Construction Executive

More
News

David W. Sweeney Named to Missouri’s POWER List for Lawyer-Lobbyists by Missouri Lawyers Media

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Decision Provides Good News for Creditors

More
News

Lindsay S. C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent Negotiate $1.4 Million Settlement for Landowners along Legacy Trail

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins Significant Victory for Atlanta Landowners Impacted by the Belt Line Rail-Trail

More
News

Jerina D. Phillips Offers COVID-19 Vaccination Advice for Employers in St. Louis Magazine Article

More
News

Lewis Rice Names Brian J. Figueroa Member of the Firm

More
News

Paul R. Himmelstein Joins Lewis Rice Kansas City Office

More
News

Winthrop B. Reed, III and the Saint Louis Zoo Unveil Name of Saint Louis Zoo WildCare Park

More
Client Alert

City of St. Louis 2021 Primary Municipal Election: Meet the Candidates

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Apollo Carey Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD’s) 2021 Fellows Program

More
Client Alert

Employee Benefit Provisions in the Recent COVID-19 Relief Bill

More
Client Alert

Employers, Start Planning Now – Get Ahead with the Upcoming H-1B Cap Season

More
News

David W. Sweeney Interviewed in Realtime REALTOR® Podcast on Changes to Elections in the City of St. Louis

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Fatima G. Khan Elected President of South Asian Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

More
News

Kansas City Office of Lewis Rice Names New Member

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Jerina D. Phillips Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD’s) 2021 Pathfinder Program

More
Client Alert

PPP Round 2: Newly-Authorized Initial and Second Draw Paycheck Protection Program Loans and Other Changes Benefit Borrowers

More