Responsive Image Banner

必赢体育

Aecom wins ruling over its own JV in saga that 鈥榖ordered on absurd鈥�

A federal court in Colorado, US, ruled in favour of a subsidiary of US-based engineering and construction contractor Aecom in a lawsuit against one of its own JV鈥檚 鈥� Flatiron/Aecom 鈥� regarding the now finished US$276 million C-470 Express Lanes roadworks project located just south of Denver.

C-470 highway (Image: Adobe Stock) Time-lapse, night-shot of the Colorado 470 highway in Morrison, near Denver, US. (Image: Adobe Stock)

The case rolled on for years but ended this month with a $14.2 million judgment awarded to plaintiff Aecom Technical Services (ATS).

Aecom鈥檚 case against its own JV

The legal battle stemmed from a Colorado Department of Transportation project to expand highway capacity just south of Denver; the state鈥檚 largest city.

Colorado-based construction contractor Flatiron, as lead contractor in the design-build joint venture with Aecom, originally bid $204 million for the work. After change orders, the contract rose to $237 million, but the joint venture said it ultimately spent more than $502 million.

Unfair contracts push contractors into trouble. So how do you make them fairer? The construction sector continues to be buffeted by insolvencies and disputes. So how do you make contracts fairer?

ATS, which provided design services, sued the joint venture first in 2019 to recover $5.3 million in unpaid invoices. The JV countered with a far-reaching $263 million claim, blaming the designer for alleged errors that it said led to rework, delays and cost escalation.

Aecom v. Flatiron/Aecom 鈥榖orders on absurd鈥�
A creative digital illustration depicting a construction site where a legal contract is being 'built' like a physical structure. Image generated using AI

The battle entered the bizarre in early 2024 after a late motion 鈥� just days before the trial was set to take place 鈥� was entered by Flatiron/Aecom.

The motion sought to pay Aecom the $5.3 million claim it requested in full. However, the motion also asked to have the JV and ATS formally swap sides; the JV assuming the role of plaintiff at trial and seeking a $263-million claim.

US District Judge William Mart铆nez as untimely and called it 鈥渂ordering on the absurd.鈥� Mart铆nez wrote the court saw 鈥渘o legal or factual justification for it to impose, by means of a judicial order, what amounts to a settlement offer by Flatiron on Aecom without the latter鈥檚 consent.鈥�

John Deere responds to lawsuit from US Federal Trade Commission regarding 鈥榮elf-repair鈥� John Deere responded to a lawsuit by the US FTC on customers 鈥榮elf-repairing鈥� machines

Instead, the trial proceeded as planned, and in March, a jury ruled in Aecom鈥檚 favour. The court awarded the design firm the full $5.26 million in unpaid fees, rejected the joint venture鈥檚 counterclaims, and later ordered the JV to pay an additional $14.2 million in legal fees and expert costs 鈥� $8.3 million in attorneys鈥� fees and $5.9 million in expenses.

The ruling caps a rare instance of one party in a joint venture suing another and then facing a substantial financial penalty for doing so.

Notes for construction industry after Aecom鈥檚 unique legal battle
In some instances, using the modified total cost method can be costly to contractors. (Image: Adobe Stock)

Central to the trial was the joint venture鈥檚 use of the 鈥渕odified total cost method鈥� to calculate damages 鈥� a debated approach that calculates losses as the difference between a contractor鈥檚 actual costs and its bid, then adjusts for errors or costs not attributable to the defendant.

While the method is , the judge allowed expert testimony using the approach, noting it had been modified to account for multiple factors.

Aecom argued that the JV鈥檚 damages expert was still effectively using a disallowed 鈥渢otal cost鈥� theory. But the court ruled otherwise, clearing the way for a jury to weigh the evidence.

Ultimately, the jury agreed with Aecom, awarding the firm exactly what it asked for and rejecting the JV鈥檚 efforts to shift blame for the overruns. The judge鈥檚 final ruling also dismissed the JV鈥檚 attempt to frame the payment as a confessed judgment.

必赢体育

STAY CONNECTED

Receive the information you need when you need it through our world-leading magazines, newsletters and daily briefings.

CONNECT WITH THE TEAM
Andy Brown Editor, Editorial, UK - Wadhurst Tel: +44 (0) 1892 786224 E-mail: andy.brown@khl.com
Neil Gerrard Senior Editor, Editorial, UK - Wadhurst Tel: +44 (0) 7355 092 771 E-mail: neil.gerrard@khl.com
Catrin Jones Editor, Editorial, UK 鈥� Wadhurst Tel: +44 (0) 791 2298 133 E-mail: catrin.jones@khl.com
Eleanor Shefford Brand Manager Tel: +44 (0) 1892 786 236 E-mail: eleanor.shefford@khl.com
CONNECT WITH SOCIAL MEDIA