What's the Delay? Contractor Delay Damages Under the Public Bid Law

Arbitration is a favored method of dispute resolution in the energy and construction sectors, where complex, high-value contracts often generate multimillion-dollar disputes. Understanding the courts' standard of review of arbitration awards directly impacts risk assessment, contract drafting, and dispute resolution strategies. A recent U.S. Fifth Circuit decision reinforces the limited grounds for judicial intervention, a principle that remains central to the effectiveness of arbitration as an efficient alternative to litigation.

In United States Trinity Services, LLC v. Southeast Directional Drilling, LLC, a drilling subcontractor obtained a $1.7 million arbitration award against the general contractor for standby costs incurred on a pipeline installation project. The subcontractor incurred costs when ordered to stop work for causes outside its control, including delayed permits, mud infiltration, and COVID-19. The subcontract contained a provision that called for reimbursement of standby costs. On appeal, the general contractor sought to vacate the award in the U.S. Northern District of Texas, arguing that the arbitration panel failed to properly interpret various contract provisions related to standby costs and exceeded its authority and acted in manifest disregard of Texas law in interpreting the contract.

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC §10 (“FAA”) applies and provides the exclusive grounds to vacate an award: corruption, fraud, evident partiality, misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, refusing to hear evidence, or where arbitrators exceeded their powers. The U. S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the FAA was enacted to create a national policy favoring arbitration; the arbitrator’s authority derives from the parties’ contract; and once parties agree to arbitrate, they “bargain for” the arbitrator’s, not the court’s, interpretation of their contract.

The Court instructed that a party challenging an award bears a high burden to show that the arbitrator ignored the contract. It is not sufficient to show the arbitrator erred in interpreting the contract. The question the court asks is “whether the arbitrators construed the contract at all” not “whether they construed it correctly.” A court should not reassess the merits of the arbitrator’s decision. Here, the award recited the pertinent contract terms and the arbitrators’ analysis. This showed the arbitrators considered the contract provisions, thus ending the Court’s inquiry.

The Court rejected the argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law in interpreting the contract. “Manifest disregard” – a judicially-created concept – is not a freestanding ground for vacatur. It does not serve as a separate basis to establish that arbitrators exceeded their powers. Otherwise, the FAA’s stated grounds for vacatur would be expanded to essentially a “full-bore” judicial review process.*

However, the Circuits are split on the validity of manifest disregard of the law or contract as a basis to vacate an award. See for example, Dewan v. Walia, where the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an award after finding the arbitrator’s contract interpretation ‘untenable.”

Mary Anne Wolf, PE, FCIArb, is an arbitrator, mediator, and attorney in construction, energy, commercial and complex cases.

References:

United States Trinity Services, LLC v. Southeast Directional Drilling, LLC, 2025 WL 1218096 (5^th Cir. 2025).

Dewan v. Walia, 544 Fed Appx 240 (4th Cir. 2013).

* Hall Street Assoc., LLC v. Mattel, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008).

In a case handled by our firm, a Lafayette-based global catering and life support client was sued by an employee based in Dubai for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The jury unanimously found that the employer (1) did not discriminate against the plaintiff because of a disability or (2) retaliate against him because he raised a complaint regarding the alleged discrimination.

The plaintiff had a written contract of employment with a one-year term that automatically renewed if he was not terminated. Upon the contract expiration date, the employer advised plaintiff that the contract would not be renewed for a successive term.

Plaintiff, an Army veteran, suffered from PTSD following his military service and deployment in Iraq. He claimed defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his PTSD, which he claimed as a mental health disability. Plaintiff further claimed that defendant retaliated against him after he complained to his direct supervisor and the head of human resources about the alleged discrimination. To support his case, plaintiff claimed he was not disciplined before his termination and did not receive negative performance reviews during employment. Significant pre-trial motion practice occurred and framed the issues for trial in two ways.

First, the defense learned of actions taken by plaintiff following the termination of his employment that would have provided a legitimate basis for termination had the actions been discovered before he was terminated. The defense argued that evidence of such “after-acquired” misconduct was relevant to credibility and independently relevant to calculate backpay that plaintiff sought, citing McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co. and McClung v. Hajek. Over defendant’s objection, the Trial Court excluded the evidence as highly prejudicial, instead finding that back pay was an equitable remedy to be decided by the Court in a subsequent evidentiary hearing related to the issue of back pay.

Second, the defense argued that non-certified medical record evidence submitted by plaintiff was hearsay and thus inadmissible to prove a disability. The Court agreed with the defendant and issued a limiting instruction that the jury was not to consider uncertified medical records for the truth of the matter asserted.

At trial, our client presented ample evidence of plaintiff’s performance deficiencies with respect to the vetting of vendors, which jeopardized the employer’s government contracts and the jobs of other employees. The majority of plaintiff’s performance issues arose in Dubai, plaintiff’s key area of oversight. Therefore, it was unbelievable that he would not know of, or take responsibility for, those performance deficiencies. In addition, the language of the written employment contract allowed for non-renewal of the contract. In a unanimous verdict as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 48, the jury ultimately found that although the plaintiff proved he suffered a disability, he failed to prove discrimination or retaliation under the Act.

References:

Staples v. Taylor International Services, Inc., et al., 6:20-cv-00192-RRS-CBW.

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 361–62, 115 S. Ct. 879, 886, 130 L. Ed. 2d 852 (1995).

McClung v. Hajek, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. 1996).

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently considered the recoverability of indirect economic damages caused by negligent injury to property of others in MAW Enterprises, LLC, et al v. City of Marksville, et al. The Court found the defendant's duty did not include liability for damages resulting from negligent interference of a contract, and dismissed the case.

MAW involved the City of Marksville's denial of a liquor permit to the plaintiff's lessee. The rent was dependent in part upon the amount of gasoline sales.The plaintiff alleged that the City's improper denial of the liquor permit resulted in lower gasoline sales. Under these facts, the Court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the City because the damages claimed were not within the "scope of the duty."

The MAW Court extensively discussed its earlier decision in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058 (La. 1984). Citing to the analysis in PPG, the Court reasoned that holding a tortfeasor responsible for indirect economic damages caused by injury to property of others could improperly create liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.

The Court held that general tort duties duty did not encompass the plaintiff's injury. Additionally, after a lengthy analysis, the Court held that the duties under La. R.S. 26:71　et seq. (involving the issuance of liquor licenses) likewise did not encompass the plaintiff's damages because these duties were owed only to the person whose liquor license was denied or granted, namely the lessee.

One dissenting Justice found the majority's reliance on PPG improper because, unlike PPG, the plaintiff's damages were not caused by a "negligent injury to property resulting in physical damages." The majority's citation to PPG appears to indicate that PPG's reasoning may be applicable to cases involving both physical and non-physical damages.