Bruce Jervis, Editor
Construction Claims Advisor
On virtually every construction project, public or private, the contractor deals directly with a designated representative of the project owner. The owner’s rep provides information, answers questions and conveys directives. The representative seems to act with considerable authority and autonomy. That impression, however, can be misleading.
In a recent Minnesota case, a municipality’s project engineer signed a change order. The contractor acted in reliance on the change order. But the city code stated that this preliminary change order was not final until it had been approved and signed by the city engineer and the city manager. The project engineer signed the change order knowing it was unlikely his boss, the city engineer, would approve the increase in the contract price. The project engineer simply wanted to process the document and maintain a good relationship with the contractor.
When the project engineer’s superiors refused to approve the change order, the contractor was left without recourse. The project engineer had followed the change order procedure. The contractor should have been familiar with the procedure and realized the project engineer lacked authority to finalize a change order.
Do you always determine the scope of authority of the individual with whom you are dealing? It is not always established in the contract itself. In the Minnesota case, it was defined in a municipal code. What do you consider “best practice” in terms of obtaining proper authorization on a construction contract? I welcome your comments.
Featured in Next Week’s Construction Claims Advisor:
- Contractor Delay Caused by Government Design Flaw
- Bidder Nonresponsibility Determination Upheld Despite Subjective Information
- No Price Reformation to Correct Subcontractor’s Mistake




Recent Comments