M.J. Paquet, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation
794 A.2d 141 | Supreme Court of New Jersey | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
M.J. Paquet bid on a New Jersey highway project but submitted an unbalanced bid. After OSHA issued new safety regulations that made part of the work impracticable, the DOT deleted the bridge painting work from the contract. The court ruled that even though the DOT could delete the work, Paquet was still entitled to an equitable adjustment (extra payment) for the remaining completed work. This means a contractor can recover damages when government-ordered deletions happen, regardless of bid structure.
Key Takeaways
- •If a government agency deletes contract work due to changed conditions or new regulations, you can claim an equitable adjustment even if your original bid was unbalanced
- •A contract clause prohibiting unbalanced bids does not prevent you from recovering when work becomes impracticable through no fault of your own
- •Document all impacts from regulatory changes, safety requirements, or agency directives—these create a basis for equitable adjustment claims
Reverse the decision denying Paquet an equitable adjustment of the contract price.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get paid extra if the government deletes part of my contract work?
Yes. Even if your bid was unbalanced or the contract prohibits unbalanced bids, you're entitled to an equitable adjustment when a government agency deletes work due to changed conditions, new regulations, or impracticability. You must prove the deletion and its impact on your costs and schedule.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.