Which case is associated with a $48 million design-build housing project at a Marine Corps base, involving differing site condition claims and breach of good faith?

Which case is associated with a $48 million design-build housing project at a Marine Corps base, involving differing site condition claims and breach of good faith?

• A. Bechtel v. USA
• B. Metcalf Construction V. USA (2014)
• C. Kiewit v. USA
• D. Turner v. USA

Answer: (B)

This item tests how differing site conditions and an owner's duty of good faith can shape a design-build contract dispute. In Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States (2014), the case centers on a Marine Corps base housing project valued around $48 million and turns on how undisclosed or unexpected site conditions can trigger contract adjustments, along with the government’s duty to act in good faith when evaluating and processing those claims. Differing site conditions arise when actual conditions on the job differ in a material way from what the contract documents and site investigations indicated. When that happens, the contractor is typically entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract price or schedule. The Metcalf case reinforces that, in a design-build context, the owner (the government) also bears an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the contract—to consider and respond to DSC claims promptly and honestly. If the owner delays, misleads, or otherwise acts in a way that undermines a legitimate DSC claim, that can amount to a breach of good faith and may justify damages to the contractor. So, the described scenario—DSC claims tied to a Marine Corps housing project and a claim of breach of good faith—maps directly to the Metcalf Construction v. United States decision, making it the best match for this question. The other cases involve different project contexts or aspects of design-build disputes that don’t align as closely with this combination of DSC and good-faith breach.

This item tests how differing site conditions and an owner's duty of good faith can shape a design-build contract dispute. In Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States (2014), the case centers on a Marine Corps base housing project valued around $48 million and turns on how undisclosed or unexpected site conditions can trigger contract adjustments, along with the government’s duty to act in good faith when evaluating and processing those claims.

Differing site conditions arise when actual conditions on the job differ in a material way from what the contract documents and site investigations indicated. When that happens, the contractor is typically entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract price or schedule. The Metcalf case reinforces that, in a design-build context, the owner (the government) also bears an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the contract—to consider and respond to DSC claims promptly and honestly. If the owner delays, misleads, or otherwise acts in a way that undermines a legitimate DSC claim, that can amount to a breach of good faith and may justify damages to the contractor.

So, the described scenario—DSC claims tied to a Marine Corps housing project and a claim of breach of good faith—maps directly to the Metcalf Construction v. United States decision, making it the best match for this question. The other cases involve different project contexts or aspects of design-build disputes that don’t align as closely with this combination of DSC and good-faith breach.