Concurrent delay and the Spearin Doctrine

A cautious response would state we can't possibly know the answer here without a lot more detail, a careful review of the contract itself, the administrative record, etc...however, when moonlighting as an anonymous internet poster with no stakes in any of this, I won't be cautious....

• Defective specifications are a type of constructive change for which the Government is liable and the contractor entitled to some type of recovery (like an equitable adjustment).  I doubt that any term or condition like 'concurrent delay provision' somehow prohibits contractor recovery in event of constructive change.

• What's more, there seems to be nothing concurrent about this delay.  As described,  only one party has hindered or delayed performance - its 100% due to the Government - so the provision doesn't apply.

Therefore does not trump.

That's my 5 minute, shady-tree-contract-lawyer answer.    

More helpfully, I'd recommend a careful reading of Contract Attorney's Deskbook, Volume 2, Chapter 21 - Contract Changes.

Supra 1 said:

does the Spearin Doctrine trump the concurrent delay clause?

1. According to the contracting officer?

2. According to a judge in the Court of Federal Claims?

3. According to the whatever-they're-called in the Boards of Contract Appeals?

4. According to a judge in federal district court?

5. According to a judge in state court?

6. According to a layman?

7. According to a mediator?

8. According to an attorney?

9. According to anonymous strangers on the Internet, some of which have green frogs for avatars?

Speculate away, but hire an attorney if you are serious about this legal question.

Supra 1 said:

If contract includes a concurrent delay provision (only allowing a time extension, but no money for concurrent delay), and the Govt. is found to have provided defective specifications that cause delay (and at some point after initial breach by Govt for defective specification, contractor causes some delay dealing with the defective specification), does the Spearin Doctrine trump the concurrent delay clause?  

Thoughts?

TIA

What clause or wording within a clause are you referring to?

I also didn’t understand what you meant about “and at some point after” and the “contractor caused some delay dealing with the defective specs”.  Was there a   Bilateral modification to adjust the contract, then a later delay?  What was the delay about? What delay was “concurrent” with ( at the same time as or on separate schedule paths as to Act concurrently) the some later delay? 

Two delays that happen at different times on the same path are not “concurrent”.