An architect performed both design and construction administration services under its contract with a school district. When the construction contractor completed the project eight months late, the architect alleged that it was entitled to recover compensation for the additional services it was forced to perform as a result of the contractor’s delay. The school district failed to pay, arguing that under the terms of the contract the architect was obligated to perform basic services until 60 days after substantial completion of the work. The court held that the architect had proved entitlement to payment for additional services due to the contractor’s failure to perform. However, the architect failed to prove the cost of its additional services, and, therefore, could recover nothing. The court explained that the architect’s computerized cost records showed the individual days and hours spent on the project, but identified them generally as, “Construction Contract Administration.” Because the architect failed specifically to identify the tasks performed, the court was unable to determine which were compensable additional services. Belot v. Unified School District, No. 497, Douglas County, 4 P.3d 626 ( Kan. App., 2000.)
* This article, and the one that follows, was written by Suzanne Harness, Esq., of the Seyfarth Shaw law firm, and originally published in the Spring 2001 issue of that firm’s Construction Practice Group newsletter, entitled: “Construction Law Report.” The firm has a national and international practice with emphasis on construction and governmental contracting. For further information: 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20006, phone: 202-463-2400.
ConstructionRisk.com Report, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Aug 2001)
Connect