United States v. Hirani Eng'g & Land Surveying, P.C.
345 F. Supp. 3d 11 | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | 2018
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
ACC, a subcontractor on a federal construction project in Washington D.C., sued its contractor Hirani and the surety Colonial for unpaid work totaling $2.17 million. The court ruled in ACC's favor on both the Miller Act claim against the surety and the breach of contract claim against the contractor. Colonial's counterclaims for project completion costs were rejected. This case shows that subcontractors can successfully recover from sureties when contractors fail to pay, even on federal projects.
Key Takeaways
- •Document all work performed and costs incurred meticulously—ACC's evidence was strong enough to win a five-day bench trial and recover full damages
- •Miller Act claims against sureties are viable when contractors don't pay; you don't have to rely solely on the contractor for payment
- •Keep detailed records of change orders, termination issues, and contract disputes—these were key evidence in proving ACC's case
- •Counterclaims by contractors or sureties often fail if they can't meet their burden of proof; don't assume you'll lose just because they sue back
Plaintiff has met its burden of proof with respect to its Miller Act claim against Colonial.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue the surety directly if my contractor doesn't pay me?
Yes. Under the Miller Act (federal projects), you can sue the surety bond company directly for unpaid work. This case shows ACC successfully recovered $2.17 million from surety Colonial when contractor Hirani failed to pay. You must document your work, costs, and the contractor's non-payment clearly to win.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
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.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.