Local government bodies in Virginia only have limited authority granted by the General Assembly. If a local government body enters into a contract that exceeds its authority, the entire contract is void and unenforceable. A recent case illustrates how this can lead to very harsh results against contractors that rely in good faith on these contracts that are later deemed void.
The recent case of H.S. Martin v. Lee County School Board perfectly illustrates this issue. There, the Lee County School Board (the “School Board”) contacted H.S. Martin (“Martin”) to repair weather damage to a middle and high school. Martin spoke about the work with School Board members, maintenance supervisors, and the school superintendent The School Board then signed pay authorization forms and actually paid out over $900,000 on a $1.4MM contract.
After receiving other bids for repair of the gym floor, the School Board told Martin to stop construction. The School Board then refused to pay Martin over $500,000 for work it had performed. Martin sued the School Board. The School Board argued that it had no obligation to pay Martin because the contracts it entered into were void ab initio (from the beginning) because they were ultra vires (beyond its authority). The Court agreed with the School Board and dismissed Martin’s claim without a trial.
Even assuming that Martin had properly performed over $500,000 in work for the School Board, the Court held that the School Board had no obligation to pay Martin. It found that the School Board had not followed the procedures in Virginia’s Public Procurement Act (the “VPPA”) for competitive bidding and emergency procurement. Ultimately, because the School Board did not follow the law, the contractor did not get paid.
This case stands as a warning to all government contractors – not only do contractors need to carefully prepare their own bids, they also need to look behind the government’s request for proposal to ensure the government is acting within its statutory authority. Otherwise, just like Martin, the contractor may not receive payment for its work.
As president of Hirschler and head of the firm's litigation section, Courtney knows how to lead people and projects to a successful outcome.
Leveraging deep experience in the construction industry, Courtney advises public and ...
Kelly’s practice focuses on construction law, commercial and product liability law, with an emphasis on dispute resolution—including mediation, arbitration, jury and bench trials in state and federal court. She routinely ...
Nate fully engages in each case and shoulders his clients’ needs. Communication, efficiency and careful judgment define his practice. In every case, he investigates competing claims to thoroughly understand their strengths ...
A professional engineer (P.E.) and an experienced lawyer, Webb began practicing at Hirschler Fleischer following four years of work as a consulting engineer. His multidisciplinary practice focuses on general business and ...
SubscribeSubscribe to Hirschler by Email
- Important New Direction on Virginia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute
- Who Do Your Contracts Require You To Indemnify?
- Take Care When You Contract With the King
- Four Steps Contractors Should Consider When Contaminated Soil Is Discovered
- Mechanic’s Liens and the Bonding Off Process
- Construction Industry Issues Impacted by the 2018 Virginia General Assembly Session
- Contractors Beware- OSHA “Look Back” Period For Repeat Violations May Not Be What It Seems
- How Long Do You Have To File Suit under Your Construction Contract?
- A New Significance of State Venue Provisions in Construction Contracts
- The Importance of Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees Provisions in Construction Contracts
- Dispute Resolution
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Mechanic's Liens
- Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
- Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR)
- Uniform Statewide Building Code
- Workforce Development
- Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission
- Change Orders
- Little Miller Act
- Miller Act