A construction contract is completed,  the contractor is called concerning a roof leak.  The contractor responds and sends in a subcontractor that completed the roofing work.  Roofing subcontractor  inspects the issue.  It turns out the issue was not related to the work done but something separate and unrelated to work performed on the contract.  Since the issue wasn't covered under warranty, sub-contractor sends bill to contractor and contractor sends bill to government.  I assume that this would be legit since its work/inspection not related to the contract or covered under warranty.  

2 hours ago, sackanator said:

A construction contract is completed,  the contractor is called concerning a roof leak.  The contractor responds and sends in a subcontractor that completed the roofing work.  Roofing subcontractor  inspects the issue.  It turns out the issue was not related to the work done but something separate and unrelated to work performed on the contract.  Since the issue wasn't covered under warranty, sub-contractor sends bill to contractor and contractor sends bill to government.  I assume that this would be legit since its work/inspection not related to the contract or covered under warranty.  

Why should the government pay the contractor for work outside the scope of work of the contract between the contractor and subcontractor? I assume the complete opposite.

Edited February 22Feb 22 by Neil Roberts
spelling

35 minutes ago, sackanator said:

Since the issue wasn't covered under warranty, sub-contractor sends bill to contractor and contractor sends bill to government.

Why did the subcontractor do the work?

We’ve discussed this before in the Forum and I believe that it’s discussed in the book Administration of Government Contracts. 

When the government directs a contractor to return pursuant to a warranty clause, the contractor returns and inspects the problem.  If it is determined that it isn’t a warranty problem, then the government would be responsible for costs incurred by the contractor in complying with the government direction.

Sackinator didn’t say that the roofing subcontractor fixed the non-warranty problem, only that it determined that the leak was unrelated to the contract work. 

“52.246-12 Inspection of Construction.

(i) Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the Government shall accept, as promptly as practicable after completion and inspection, all work required by the contract or that portion of the work the Contracting Officer determines can be accepted separately. Acceptance shall be final and conclusive except for latent defects, fraud, gross mistakes amounting to fraud, or the Government’s rights under any warranty or guarantee”.

52.246-21 Warranty of Construction

“Warranty of Construction (Mar 1994)

(a) In addition to any other warranties in this contract, the Contractor warrants, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this clause, that work performed under this contract conforms to the contract requirements and is free of any defect in equipment, material, or design furnished, or workmanship performed by the Contractor or any subcontractor or supplier at any tier.”

After final acceptance, the burden is on the government to establish that any failure is the responsibility of the contractor under either clause above. 

It was not uncommon in my experience for Military installations to call contractors back under a warranty without inspecting and/or establishing the cause of the problem or that it was even related to the contract work.

 

Mr. Hoffman is correct, the invoice from the subcontractor was for their time and efforts to travel to the site.  The only direction to the contractor given was that there was a leak from the roofing work done, and per the terms of the warranty they were required to correct the issue.  The sub found out the leak was from a vent pipe that wasn't part of the work done.  

Mr. Hoffman, I tried doing a search in the blogs but was unsuccessful not knowing the key words to use in the search.  Your reference is helpful but if there was another thread of a similar/same discussion could you by chance paste the link?

I’ll check my edition of Administration of Government Contracts tomorrow. 

I found al thread from 2023 - similar situation .ive dealt with is this over the years working for the Corps of Engineers  

hope this helps.  Picking up daughter now at airport. Good night 🌙 

You can do a Search in WIFCON for warranty issue threads 

Ok, I checked my 3rd and 4th Editions of  Administration of Government Contracts. There is a complete section on post acceptance rights and responsibilities of the parties including warranties, burden of proof, issues with improper calls, preservation of contract rights of the parties for remedies, case law citations, etc.

Assuming from the facts that you presented so far, I don’t really know why you need more basis than what I told you to show that, after final acceptance of the work,  

1.The government has the burden of proof to show that the contractor’s work or materials were faulty, causing the leak or that there was fraud or gross mistake involved. (Specifically discussed in detail in the referenced book.)

2. The government apparently, simply assumed that the leak was associated with the contractor’s work.

3. The government called the contractor back under the authority of the warranty clause/warranty.

4. The contractor determined that the leak was not caused by or associated with the contractor’s work or otherwise damaged by the contractor.

5. Thus, the prior acceptance of the work was still final and conclusive.

6. Therefore, the contractor had no liability under the warranty.

7. There were some costs incurred to make a site visit and to inspect the cause of the leak.

8. The contractor isn’t liable for those costs.

9. During the warranty period the contract terms and rights of the parties are preserved for remedies. 

10. The contractor can submit a request for equitable adjustment.

All of the above points are covered in the reference. You can buy a used copy of the book and read it for yourself in substantial detail. It would be cheaper than hiring a good construction lawyer lawyer or consultant if you can’t make the argument yourself.

This is not a novel example. Good luck. 🤠

Edited February 24Feb 24 by joel hoffman
Re-formatted my answer.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.  Sorry for the slow communication, reffed a basketball tournament, 17 games in two days.  I should ask my questions when I don't have to do these things.  Joel, I think you answered everything, Thank you.    

55 minutes ago, sackanator said:

Thanks everyone for the feedback. 

I wasn't reffing, just gone.   You might find this previous discussion interesting especially since roof is a common denominator.  

 

33 minutes ago, C Culham said:

I wasn't reffing, just gone.   You might find this previous discussion interesting especially since roof is a common denominator.  

 

Carl, that is the discussion I referenced and provided the link to earlier. 

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Carl, that is the discussion I referenced and provided the link to earlier. 

Yep my bad

On 2/24/2025 at 8:32 AM, sackanator said:

 Sorry for the slow communication, reffed a basketball tournament, 17 games in two days.  

I really respect referees.  My son and daughter played sports at an early age and continued through college.  My grandson now plays JV basketball.  If you’re in the DC area, you might have reffed one of this games this past weekend.

16 hours ago, formerfed said:

I really respect referees.  My son and daughter played sports at an early age and continued through college.  My grandson now plays JV basketball.  If you’re in the DC area, you might have reffed one of this games this past weekend.

In Montana were not as many schools but still can't seem to find enough folks to officiate.  Some because of angry coaches and parents, some from good old boy clubs in the pool that wouldn't allow anyone to advance unless you were part of the inner circle.  Its changing but we definitely lack youth, most new officials are retired or close to Retirment.