## Facts

- Blinderman Construction Co., Inc. contracted with the Navy under a fixed-price contract to install utility-related permanent improvements in 656 occupied apartments at the Great Lakes Naval Base.
- The work required a specific sequence and coordination among subcontractors; Blinderman had to submit progress reports and prepare a reasonable construction schedule subject to Navy review and approval.
- The contract required notice to apartment occupants at least three days before work began in a unit.
- During performance, Blinderman experienced significant difficulty obtaining access to about 60 apartments due to occupant absence, leave, or refusal to allow entry.
- After Blinderman reported that access problems were interfering with the schedule, the Navy undertook to coordinate access, which took additional time and caused subcontractors to return to units later to perform sequencing-dependent work.
- The project finished late (approximately two weeks), and the Navy assessed liquidated damages for delay.
- Blinderman sought money and a time extension, asserting the Navy had a contractual responsibility (or assumed responsibility by approving the schedule) to provide timely access and failed to coordinate access reasonably.
- Blinderman’s claims included: (1) a July 26, 1978 power-outage claim (allowed by the Board; not appealed), (2) an August 18, 1978 power-outage claim ($617.40; denied), and (3) an access-delay claim seeking delay costs and time extension (denied by the Board on the view that access was the contractor’s responsibility).

## Issues

1. Whether the contract placed an obligation on the Navy to provide or coordinate timely access to occupied apartments such that access problems could constitute government-caused delay supporting compensation and a time extension.
2. Whether the denial of Blinderman’s claim for additional costs allegedly caused by the August 18, 1978 power outage was erroneous.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s contract interpretation on the access-delay claim, holding the Navy had a contractual obligation concerning access to the occupied apartments.
- The court remanded for factual determinations the Board had not made, including whether any Navy-caused access delay was unreasonable, the extent of compensable delay, and any resulting monetary or schedule relief.
- The court affirmed the Board’s denial of the August 18, 1978 power-outage claim.

## Legal Principles

- Contract interpretation is a question of law; an appeals court may reverse an administrative board’s legal construction of contract provisions.
- When the government controls premises needed for performance and approves a sequencing-dependent construction schedule, the contract may impose on the government a duty to cooperate in providing access consistent with the approved schedule.
- Even when a government duty is established, a contractor seeking an equitable adjustment or time extension must prove causation, unreasonable government delay or hindrance, and the amount of compensable impact.
- Administrative findings on factual questions (such as delay causation and quantum) are for the board in the first instance when not previously addressed.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the Navy, given its control of the occupied apartments and its approval of a sequencing-dependent schedule, bore a contractual responsibility to cooperate in providing access; it remanded for findings on whether the Navy’s access coordination caused unreasonable, compensable delay, while affirming denial of the separate August 1978 outage-cost claim.


Blinderman Constr. Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1982)