Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-21-10668/USCOURTS-ca11-21-10668-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Boland, Inc.
Appellant-Cross Appellee
Fedcon Joint Venture
Appellant-Cross Appellee
GLF Construction Corporation
Appellee-Cross Appellant
JT Construction Enterprises Corporation
Appellant-Cross Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10668

____________________

GLF CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, 

a Florida profit corporation, 

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant 

-Appellee-Cross Appellant,

versus

FEDCON JOINT VENTURE, 

a Florida joint venture, 

Defendant-Counter Claimant

-Appellant-Cross Appellee,

DAVID BOLAND, INC., 

a Florida profit corporation, 

JT CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 1 of 24
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

a Florida profit corporation, 

Defendants-Appellants

-Cross Appellee,

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, 

Defendant,

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,

 Counter Defendant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket Nos. 8:17-cv-01932-CEH-AAS,

8:17-cv-02650-CEH-TGW

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

* Honorable Rodney Smith, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 2 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 3

This consolidated case arises out of a project to repair and 

reinforce a levee along a section of the Mississippi River in the state 

of Louisiana. The project was led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”). The case involves two subcontracts between Appellants (jointly, “FEDCON”), the general contractor on 

the project, and Appellee, GLF Construction Corporation (“GLF”),

a subcontractor on the project. After a thirteen-day bench trial, the 

district court issued a lengthy Opinion and Order, with detailed factual findings and conclusions of law. Both sides have appealed aspects of the district court’s Opinion and Order. As explained below, 

we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

I.

The district court’s 192-page order contains nearly 142 pages 

of detailed factual findings. Neither side has appealed any of these 

findings; thus, we will only summarize the factual findings here.

In 2013, FEDCON entered two written contracts with the 

Corps. Each contract covered a different section of the levee project, referred to as the 2.2 Project and the 1.2a Project. In January 

and April 2014, FEDCON entered two subcontracts with GLF, one 

to perform certain work on the 2.2 Project and one to perform certain work on the 1.2a Project (the “2.2 Subcontract” and the “1.2a 

Subcontract,” respectively, and collectively, the “Subcontracts”). 

The Subcontracts state that they are governed by Florida law. 

Under the Subcontracts, GLF was to provide work on two 

work fronts for each project. In accordance with FEDCON’s 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 3 of 24
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

coordination and scheduling of the work to be performed by its 

subcontractors, another FEDCON subcontractor, HDB Construction (“HDB”), was to construct access roads, construct temporary 

flood protection, degrade the levee, and construct work platforms. 

HDB’s work needed to be done before GLF could do its work of 

driving sheet pilings, driving pipe pilings, and forming and pouring 

the concrete T-walls. Prior to the bench trial, FEDCON stipulated 

that:

In accordance with FEDCON’s coordination and 

scheduling of the work to be performed by its subcontractors, construction of the access road, construction of temporary flood protection, and degrading of the levee and construction of the work 

platform, all of which was to be performed by 

FEDCON’s subcontractor, HDB Construction, were 

predecessor work activities to GLF’s performance of 

its work activities[.]

The quality of HDB’s predecessor work led to many of the disputes 

between FEDCON and GLF.

The temporary access road, which HDB was to construct 

and maintain, would allow GLF to access the work sites. The 2.2 

Subcontract required “a temporary access road approximately 12’ 

wide extending the length of the levee, located adjacent to the temporary work platform on the protected side of the levee.” The 1.2a 

Subcontract required a “a temporary access road approximately 15’ 

wide.” The roads that were constructed held up poorly and became muddy and rutted. There were days when FEDCON closed 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 4 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 5

the roads because of their poor condition, which prevented GLF 

from working on those days. These closures occurred when it 

rained. Sometimes the roads remained closed for a day or more after the rain so that the roads could dry out. Consequently, 

FEDCON issued GLF non-compensable time extensions for the 

days GLF could not work because of the road conditions.

GLF repeatedly expressed concern about the conditions of 

the roads and the safety concerns the poor conditions created. In 

June and July 2014, FEDCON reached out to an engineer to discuss 

the access road for the 1.2a Project. The engineer issued several 

design recommendations to improve the road. Despite these recommendations, FEDCON did not make any changes to HDB’s subcontract. Nor did FEDCON provide HDB with any engineering 

data or recommendations to improve the access road for the 2.2 

Project. In the fall of 2014, FEDCON communicated with several 

engineers and companies to explore solutions for the access roads. 

After receiving proposals for engineering options to improve the 

access roads, FEDCON decided that any of the recommended upgrades would be cost prohibitive. 

In the fall of 2015, GLF notified FEDCON of the continuing 

impact caused by the conditions of the access roads. In a November 3, 2015 letter, GLF notified FEDCON that GLF would be left 

with no option but to demobilize from the Projects until FEDCON 

“provides the proper access in accordance with the contract.” On 

November 13, 2015, after GLF’s notice, FEDCON issued change 

orders to HDB for both Projects to perform some reconstruction 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 5 of 24
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

work on the access roads. Despite the reconstruction by HDB, 

GLF continued to be impacted by the conditions of the access 

roads on both Projects. 

As a result of the issues with the access roads, GLF submitted damage claims regarding the access roads in accordance with 

paragraph 13.B. of the Subcontracts, which sets out the process for 

GLF to make claims arising out of the Subcontracts. GLF’s damage 

claims sought the costs it had incurred for the time its workers and 

equipment were idled due to the conditions of the access roads. 

On August 7, 2015, GLF advised FEDCON that GLF would 

be removing all resources from work front two on the 2.2 Project 

beginning Monday, August 10, 2015, until FEDCON had a fully accepted access plan approved by the Corps. 

In addition to issues with the access roads, GLF also encountered problems with the work platforms. The 2.2 and 1.2a Subcontracts between FEDCON and GLF required the construction and 

maintenance of temporary work platforms at each of the work 

fronts, which were required to be approximately 30 feet wide and 

600 feet long. The platforms, made of compacted earth, were 

needed to allow GLF to position its cranes and other equipment. 

The platforms that were not sufficiently compacted yielded to the 

weight of the cranes, causing the cranes to list and shut off. HDB 

was to construct the work platforms. 

As a result of FEDCON’s failure to provide a sufficiently 

compacted work platform, GLF’s performance was impacted on 

both Projects. To compensate for the trouble with the work 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 6 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 7

platforms, GLF bought approximately 180 extra crane mats, which 

GLF needed to try to stabilize the cranes. Because of the often-wet 

conditions, the crane mats would sink in the mud, creating a labor 

and time intensive process to move them as work progressed. On 

April 29, 2016, GLF submitted damage claims for the work platforms.

Both Subcontracts required GLF to have sufficient manpower, equipment, and materials to work on two work fronts simultaneously, for a total of four work fronts. In September 2015, 

after a work stoppage due to the river level, GLF claimed it was 

unable to resume work on the second work front of the 2.2 Project

(“work front two”). The delay was mainly due to a nearby Chevron plant that made accessing work front two difficult. The location of the Chevron plant affected both the access road and the 

work platform at work front two. 

As a result of the issues caused by the Chevron plant, 

FEDCON made a claim with the Corps to account for the differing 

site conditions caused by the Chevron plant. The presence of the 

Chevron plant affected the width of the work platform at work 

front two, causing it to be considerably less than thirty feet in 

width, as required by the 2.2 Subcontract. FEDCON worked with 

the Corps to come up with a new access plan for work front two 

on the 2.2 Project. The Corps recognized FEDCON’s differing site 

condition claim. On April 11, 2016, FEDCON notified GLF about 

the new access plan and directed GLF to promptly recommence 

work at work front two. FEDCON committed to providing a 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 7 of 24
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

minimum twenty-eight-foot-wide engineered work platform, 

where space limitations prevented a thirty-foot wide platform. 

GLF did not feel comfortable restarting work at work front two. 

GLF sent FEDCON a memo raising concerns about the changes in 

access and work platform width. GLF also argued that these 

changes were changes to the 2.2 Subcontract and required a change 

order.

Paragraph 8.A. of the 2.2 Subcontract permits FEDCON to 

terminate GLF under certain circumstances, after FEDCON gives 

written notice of an alleged deficiency that GLF fails to cure within 

72-hours of receipt of the notice. These circumstances include 

GLF “[f ]ailing to proceed with the Work in the sequence directed 

by [FEDCON]”; “[c]ausing stoppage, delay, or interference to the 

work of [FEDCON] or another subcontractor”; and “[f ]ailing to 

perform the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents.” 

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.A. of the 2.2 Subcontract, on May 23, 

2016, FEDCON issued a Notice of Default to GLF and directed 

GLF to submit a plan setting forth how it intended to proceed with 

work at the second work front on the 2.2 Project. The Notice of 

Default advised GLF that a failure to cure its default within 72 

hours would lead to a declaration that GLF was in material breach 

and would result in termination of GLF.1 On May 24, 2016, GLF 

responded that FEDCON had failed to provide GLF with an 

1 Specifically, FEDCON required GLF provide a written plan demonstrating 

and committing to the recommencement of work at work front two at the 

earliest reasonable time.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 8 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 9

acceptable engineering plan that demonstrated how FEDCON 

planned to resolve the access road and work platform issues. GLF 

sent a follow-up letter stating that it would recommence work at 

work front two as soon as FEDCON fulfilled its contractual responsibilities that were conditions precedent to GLF recommencing work. On May 27, 2016, FEDCON terminated GLF’s 2.2 Subcontract stating that GLF’s refusal to recommence work was a material breach of the 2.2 Subcontract and ordered GLF to commence 

the removal of its equipment and personnel from the project site. 

GLF sued FEDCON in two separate actions, alleging claims 

under the Miller Act and for breach of the 2.2 and 1.2a Subcontracts. FEDCON brought counterclaims for breach of the Subcontracts by GLF. The cases were consolidated, and a bench trial was 

held. At trial, GLF maintained that it could not perform under the 

Subcontracts because FEDCON had failed to perform its predecessor obligations of constructing access roads and work platforms. 

In its nearly 200-page decision, the district court ruled that 

FEDCON breached the Subcontracts with GLF by failing to provide the necessary predecessor work, i.e., proper construction of 

the access roads; that FEDCON improperly terminated GLF for default; and that FEDCON’s counterclaims were without merit. GLF 

was awarded $577,246.93 on its breach of contract claim for the 

1.2a Project and $2,416,798.71 on its breach of contract claim for 

the 2.2 Project. Included in the damages awarded to GLF on its 

claim for breach of the 2.2 Subcontract was $880,000 for 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 9 of 24
10 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

demobilization costs and expenses incurred after FEDCON improperly terminated GLF under the 2.2 Subcontract.

The district court found that FEDCON breached the 1.2a 

and 2.2 Subcontracts by actively interfering with GLF’s performance. Specifically, the district court found that FEDCON failed 

to construct and provide access roads in accordance with the requirements of the Subcontracts. The district court went on to conclude that FEDCON actively interfered because the design for the 

access roads was insufficient; the roads were not engineered, as required; and because FEDCON explored engineering solutions but 

chose not to take any actions because of the costs involved. The 

district court concluded that, because FEDCON actively interfered 

with GLF’s performance, GLF was entitled to damages despite 

both Subcontracts having no-damages-for-delay provisions, because the evidence demonstrated a “knowing delay” on behalf of 

FEDCON that was “sufficiently egregious.” 

The district court also found that GLF’s breach of contract 

claim based on FEDCON’s failure to properly construct the work 

platforms failed. The failure to properly construct the work platforms led to delays in GLF’s performance. The district court found 

that while FEDCON’s failure may have led to delays and may have 

hindered GLF’s performance, any damages fell within the no-damages-for-delay provisions of the Subcontracts because there was no 

evidence of active interference by FEDCON with regards to the 

work platforms, in contrast to the active interference the court 

found with the access roads.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 10 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 11

The district court found that GLF’s breach of contract claim 

based on FEDCON’s failure to provide two work fronts also failed 

because of the no-damages-for-delay provisions. The district court 

found no evidence of active interference as to this claim. 

Thereafter, FEDCON appealed and GLF filed a cross-appeal. 

FEDCON appeals the district court’s finding that FEDCON improperly terminated GLF. FEDCON also appeals the award of 

damages, arguing that any award is barred by the no-damages-fordelay provisions in the Subcontracts. GLF cross-appeals the 

amount of damages awarded by the district court, arguing that the 

district court erred by finding that the no-damages-for delay provisions barred recovery of damages related to FEDCON’s failure to 

provide two work fronts and failure to provide properly constructed work platforms.

II.

“The interpretation of a contract is a question of law that 

we review de novo.” Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC, 933 F.3d 1286, 1293 

(11th Cir. 2019) (emphasis omitted). But we review for clear error 

all the district court’s factual findings related to that contract. See 

Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 959 F.3d 1288, 1301 (11th Cir. 

2020). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the entirety of 

the evidence leads the reviewing court to a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Sea Byte, Inc. v. Hudson 

Marine Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 565 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 11 of 24
12 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

We review the district court’s determination of the proper 

legal standard to compute damages de novo and factual findings for 

clear error. A. A. Profiles, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 253 F.3d 576, 

581 (11th Cir. 2001). As to assessing damages, district courts are 

given “[g]reat latitude” in fashioning monetary awards. Ramada 

Inns, Inc. v. Gadsden Motel Co., 804 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1986) 

(quotation omitted). We won’t set aside an award based on the 

proper legal standard unless it’s “clearly inadequate.” Id.

III.

There are two main issues on appeal: (1) whether the district 

court erred in determining that FEDCON breached the 2.2 Subcontract by improperly terminating GLF and (2) whether the district court erred in its award of damages to GLF. In addressing 

these issues, we keep the following rules of contract interpretation 

in mind. Words used in a contract must be given their plain and 

ordinary meaning. Beans v. Chohonis, 740 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. Dist. 

Ct. App. 1999). Thus, when a word in a contract is undefined,

“courts may look to legal and non-legal dictionary definitions to 

determine [its] meaning.” Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Macedo, 228 So. 3d 

1111, 1113 (Fla. 2017).

Applying these rules of contract interpretation to the Subcontracts, we find that the district court did not err in finding that 

FEDCON breached the 2.2 Subcontract by improperly terminating 

GLF because, at the time of termination, GLF had not breached 

the 2.2 Subcontract. We also find that the district court did not err 

in determining GLF was entitled to damages under the contract, 

but did err in its determination that GLF was entitled to its 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 12 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 13

demobilization costs as part of its recovery. We further find that 

the district court erred in ruling that the no-damages-for-delay provisions barred GLF’s recovery of the cost of the additional crane 

mats GLF was required to purchase due to the poor conditions of 

the work platforms. 

A. Termination of GLF

The district court awarded GLF damages after finding that 

FEDCON improperly terminated GLF from the 2.2 Subcontract. 

FEDCON maintains that this was error because, under the 2.2 Subcontract, FEDCON properly terminated GLF after GLF refused to 

proceed with the work or provide FEDCON with reassurances as 

to when GLF would proceed with the work.

In making this argument, FEDCON ignores a key fact—

FEDCON’s pretrial stipulation that construction of the access 

roads, work platforms, temporary flood protection, and degrading 

of the levee were all predecessor work activities to GLF’s performance of its work.2 Based on this stipulation, at the time FEDCON 

sent the Notice of Default, GLF was not in default. GLF had not 

failed to perform the work in the sequence directed by FEDCON. 

Pursuant to the stipulation, GLF was not to perform its work until 

HDB had performed specific predecessor work. The record is clear 

that HDB had not properly or fully performed its predecessor work 

activities—construction of adequate access roads and work 

2 While FEDCON contends that the district court rewrote the Subcontract by 

finding that predecessor work had to be completed before GLF could perform 

under the Subcontract, FEDCON stipulated to this fact. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 13 of 24
14 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

platforms. Thus, at the time FEDCON gave Notice of Default and 

at the time GLF was terminated, GLF was still waiting for the predecessor work to take place that would enable GLF to do its work. 

The 2.2 Subcontract allowed FEDCON to terminate GLF if 

GLF failed to proceed with the work in the sequence directed by 

FEDCON; if GLF caused stoppage, delay, or interference with the 

work of FEDCON or another subcontractor; or if GLF failed to 

perform the work in compliance with the contract documents. Because the predecessor work had not been properly completed, GLF 

did not fail to proceed with the work in the sequence directed by 

FEDCON; GLF did not cause stoppage, delay, or interference with 

FEDCON’s or another subcontractor’s work; and GLF did not fail 

to perform the work in compliance with the contract documents. 

Consequently, when GLF received the Notice of Default from 

FEDCON, GLF was not in breach of the 2.2 Subcontract. Therefore, FEDCON’s termination of GLF was improper because 

FEDCON had no basis on which to terminate GLF.

FEDCON also maintains that GLF breached the 2.2 Subcontract by failing to comply with the dispute resolution mechanism 

in paragraph 10.B. of the Subcontract. According to FEDCON, if 

GLF believed that FEDCON’s demand that GLF resume work was 

improper, GLF should have used the dispute mechanism set out in 

paragraph 10.B. of the Subcontract. Paragraph 10.B. states:

Any claim of the Subcontractor for adjustment for 

changes in the Work, or for additional time or compensation, must be made in writing and delivered to 

the Contractor within ten (10) days from the date of 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 14 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 15

receipt by the Subcontractor of the notification of a 

change or of the requirement to perform specific 

Work . . . . If the Owner or the parties fa[i]l to agree 

upon the adjustment to be made, the dispute shall be 

determined as provided in Paragraph 13 herein; but 

nothing provided in this clause shall excuse the Subcontractor from proceeding with the prosecution of 

the Work . . . .

However, paragraph 10.B. does not apply to the circumstances 

faced by GLF.

The language of paragraph 10.B. states that it applies to a 

“claim of the Subcontractor for adjustment for changes in the Work.” 

(emphasis added). However, GLF was not the one seeking a 

change to the work. The claims for changes to the work were made 

by FEDCON, to the Corps, to address the access issues created by 

the location of the Chevron plant. FEDCON told GLF what those 

changes were, including the smaller platforms. GLF did not want 

those changes and, in fact, wanted FEDCON to perform as required under the Subcontract. Thus, because GLF was not the one 

seeking a change in the work, paragraph 10.B. did not apply. 

If paragraph 10.B. did not apply, GLF was entitled to turn to 

paragraph 13 for dispute resolution, which does not require GLF 

to seek an adjustment for the work under the procedure set out in 

paragraph 10.B. Moreover, unlike paragraph 10.B., paragraph 13 

does not require GLF to continue to perform under the Subcontract during the dispute resolution process. Thus, GLF did not 

breach the Subcontract by failing to comply with paragraph 10.B. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 15 of 24
16 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

of the Subcontract. Consequently, the district court did not err in 

finding that FEDCON breached the 2.2 Subcontract by improperly 

terminating GLF and in finding that GLF did not breach the 2.2. 

Subcontract by failing to follow the dispute resolution process set 

out in paragraph 10.B. of the Subcontract.

B. Damages

The District Court awarded GLF breach of contract damages for breach of both the 1.2a Subcontract and the 2.2. Subcontract. The damages awarded for breach of the 1.2a Subcontract 

arise from the problems caused by the access roads. The damages 

awarded for breach of the 2.2 Subcontract include damages for the 

problems caused by the access roads and damages for the improper 

termination of the 2.2 Subcontract. GLF maintains that the district 

court erred by failing to award it additional damages for disruptions 

to its work under both Subcontracts. FEDCON maintains that the 

district court erred by awarding GLF any damages related to the 

access roads and certain damages awarded to GLF for the improper 

termination of the 2.2 Subcontract.

i. Damages for the Access Roads

Based on the Subcontracts’ no-damages-for-delay provisions, FEDCON contests the award of damages for the issues 

caused by the access roads. Specifically, the no-damages-for-delay 

provisions, paragraph 12.B. of the Subcontracts,3 states:

3 The wording of the no-damages-for-delay provision is the same in both Subcontracts.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 16 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 17

The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any 

damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or 

unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the 

commencement or execution of the Work, caused in 

whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether 

negligent or not, of the Contractor . . . . The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, 

suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension.

Generally, such clauses are enforceable under Florida law. Marriott 

Corp. v. Dasta Const. Co., 26 F.3d 1057, 1067 n.17 (11th Cir. 1994). 

However, “such a clause does not preclude recovery for delays resulting from a party’s fraud, concealment, or active interference 

with performance under the contract.” Newberry Square Dev. Corp. 

v. S. Landmark, Inc., 578 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Despite 

a no-damages-for-delay clause, “damages may be awarded upon a 

‘knowing delay’ which is sufficiently egregious.” Id. (citing S. Gulf 

Utils. Inc. v. Boca Ciega Sanitary Dist., 238 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 

1972)). “These exceptions to the no damages clause are generally 

predicated upon an implied promise and obligation not to hinder 

or impede performance.” Id.

The district court found that FEDCON’s actions related to 

the access roads amounted to active interference with GLF’s performance under the Subcontracts. The Court agrees. FEDCON 

knew there were issues with the access roads throughout the term 

of the Subcontracts, in part, because GLF complained about the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 17 of 24
18 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

state of the access roads numerous times. FEDCON knew those 

issues were causing delays on good and bad weather days because 

of the conditions of the access roads during and after rain. 

FEDCON engaged engineers to recommend solutions, but 

FEDCON chose not to implement any solution because of the expense involved, thereby allowing the weather delays to continue 

interfering with GLF’s ability to perform. Therefore, FEDCON 

created a knowing delay, which was sufficiently egregious to overcome the no-damages-for-delay provision. Consequently, 

FEDCON’s actions, or inactions, by knowingly choosing to do 

nothing about the issues with the access roads despite actively looking for solutions, amounted to active interference. Accordingly, the 

district court did not err in awarding GLF damages for FEDCON’s 

breach of the Subcontracts arising from FEDCON’s failure to provide adequate access roads. 

ii. Damages for Disruption

In its cross-appeal, GLF argues that the district court erred 

by not awarding GLF damages for additional disruptions to its 

work caused by FEDCON’s material breaches of the Subcontracts. 

GLF maintains that disruption damages are distinguishable from 

delay damages that are barred by the Subcontracts’ no-damagesfor-delay clauses, which preclude damages for “a delay, hindrance, 

[or] suspension . . . of the commencement or execution of the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 18 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 19

Work” caused by FEDCON. 4 GLF distinguishes between delay 

damages, which arise when the performance of the contract has 

been extended over a greater period of time, and disruption damages, which arise when it becomes more expensive to perform the 

same subcontract work. Under these definitions, disruption does 

not necessarily lead to an extension of the completion date of the 

project. 

As examples of the disruptions it faced, GLF points to (1) 

FEDCON’s failure to have two work fronts available on each project, (2) GLF’s need for additional crane mats because the work 

platforms were not properly constructed, and (3) the additional 

time and labor it took GLF’s employees to move the crane mats 

because the work platforms were not properly constructed. While 

we affirm the district court’s holding that GLF’s claim for damages 

based on the failure to have two work fronts available and claim for 

damages based on the additional time and labor it took to move the 

crane mats fall within the no-damages-for-delay provisions, we reverse and remand to the district court on GLF’s claim for the costs 

of the additional crane mats. 

The improper construction of the work platforms led to 

GLF purchasing an additional 180 crane mats to compensate for 

their improper construction and required extra labor for GLF to 

move the crane mats. The additional costs of the crane mats did 

4 “Hindrance” is commonly defined as “the state of being hindered” or an “impediment.” Hindrance, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 

1997). “Hinder” is defined as “to delay, impede, or prevent action.” Id. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 19 of 24
20 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

not arise because of a delay or hindrance caused by FEDCON; 

these costs arose because of FEDCON’s failure to construct the 

work platforms to contract specifications. Had GLF not purchased 

the additional crane mats, it would have been unable to do its work. 

Thus, the improperly constructed work platforms were more than 

a mere hindrance because GLF could not perform its work using 

the platforms as constructed. In other words, without the additional crane mats, the state of the work platforms not only hindered GLF’s performance, it prevented it. As such, the additional 

costs of the crane mats GLF had to purchase to make the work 

platforms usable for its purpose are not barred by the no-damagesfor-delay provisions. Thus, we reverse the district court on this issue and remand for a determination as to whether such damages 

were appropriate under the contract and, if so, the amount of such 

damages. 

While it might seem that the no-damages-for-delay provisions also would not bar the additional labor costs involved in moving the crane mats, which would sink into the muddy, non-compacted surface of the work platforms, these labor costs fall within 

the no-damages-for-delay provisions. These provisions exclude 

damages for more than just mere delay; they also exclude damages 

caused by a hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the work. 

The extra labor required to move the crane mats because of the 

muddy conditions amounts to a “hindrance.” As noted, a “hindrance” is an “impediment,” which is defined as something that impedes. Impediment, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th 

ed. 1997). “Impede” is defined as “to interfere with or slow the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 20 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 21

progress of.” Id. Based on these definitions, the muddy conditions 

that made moving the crane mats more difficult and time consuming constitute a hindrance under the no-damages-for-delay provisions. Unlike the purchase of the additional crane mats, which 

were needed to make the work platforms usable, the additional 

time and labor to move the crane mats amounted to an impediment or hindrance to GLF performing its work under the Subcontract. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s finding that these 

additional labor costs are not recoverable.

The damages GLF seeks for the time its workers and equipment sat idle because of its inability to work on two work fronts 

also fall within the no-damages-for-delay provisions of the Subcontracts. FEDCON’s failure to have two work fronts available constitutes a hindrance that caused a delay in GLF’s ability to do its work. 

The express terms of the Subcontracts preclude GLF from recovering any damages for FEDCON’s hindrance of GLF in the execution of GLF’s work. GLF incurred these costs because of 

FEDCON’s failure to timely and properly complete the predecessor work—preparing two work fronts. Thus, GLF’s inability to 

work was directly the result of the acts or omissions of FEDCON 

and these damages are explicitly excluded under the no-damagesfor-delay provisions of the Subcontracts.5 Consequently, we affirm 

5 GLF points to Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. City of Jacksonville, No. 3:08-

CV-338-J-25 JRK, 2011 WL 13176636, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2011), for the 

proposition that Florida courts recognize the difference between delay and 

disruption damages and a no-damages-for-delay provision does not prevent 

recovery for disruption damages. However, in Safeco, the court recognized 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 21 of 24
22 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

the district court’s holding that the no-damages-for-delay clauses

preclude GLF from recovering these damages. 

iii. Damages for Demobilization Costs

Included in the damages awarded by the district court for 

improper termination of the 2.2 Subcontract is $880,000 for demobilization costs, which GLF incurred after FEDCON terminated 

GLF. Section 11.B. of the 2.2 Subcontract states: 

If this Subcontract Agreement is terminated for convenience, the Subcontractor shall be entitled, as its 

sole compensation, to be paid that portion of the total 

price provided in this Subcontract Agreement that is 

equal to the reasonable value of the Work performed, 

plus the reasonable value of properly authorized materials fabricated and properly stored . . . prior to the 

termination. . . . The Contractor shall not be liable to the 

Subcontractor for any other costs[,] nor for prospective 

or anticipated profits on Work not performed. 

(emphasis added). The demobilization costs were included in the 

2.2 Subcontract as a line item for mobilization and demobilization 

costs. 

The language of the Subcontract is not ambiguous. Upon 

termination, GLF was entitled to payment for the work it had 

that provisions in the contract at issue may allow for disruption damages. Id. 

at *2. GLF has not pointed to any such provisions in the instant case. Additionally, “[w]e are unmoved by [GLF’s] creative attempt to label its way 

around the no damage for delay clause.” Marriott Corp. v. Dasta Const. Co., 26 

F.3d 1057, 1070 n.26.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 22 of 24
21-10668 Opinion of the Court 23

performed up until termination. The Subcontract expressly excluded costs incurred after termination. At the time GLF was terminated, it had not demobilized. While GLF would have to demobilize regardless of whether it was terminated or it completed the 

Project, the language of the Subcontract does not take this into 

consideration. At the time GLF was terminated, it had not performed demobilization work. Thus, under the express terms of 

the Subcontract, GLF was not entitled to its demobilization costs.

The persuasive authority relied on by GLF, Orion Marine Contractors, Inc. v. City of Seward, 747 F. App’x 510 (9th Cir. 2018), and 

Steenberg Construction Co. v. Prepakt Concrete Co., 381 F.2d 768 (10th

Cir. 1967), do not change this outcome. In Orion, the contract at 

issue expressly addressed payment of mobilization and demobilization costs and permitted full payment of these costs, including 

upon a termination for convenience, upon the contractor’s remittance of “all submittals required under the Contract” to the city. 

747 F. App’x at 512. The court found that the contractor had remitted all the required submittals to the city and was, therefore, entitled to full payment for mobilization and demobilization costs. Id.

at 513. Here, the 2.2 Subcontract does not expressly address payment of demobilization costs upon early termination. Thus, Orion

is inapposite. Steenberg is also inapposite. In Steenberg, the court 

addressed whether the subcontractor’s demobilization, after its 

abandonment of the project, constituted “labor” for purposes of 

the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations. 381 F.2d at 774. 

The court found that, because the contract included a lump sum 

price for mobilization and demobilization, the subcontractor’s 

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 23 of 24
24 Opinion of the Court 21-10668

demobilization constituted “labor” on the project. Id. The Steenberg court did not address the issue currently before this Court regarding whether uncompleted demobilization qualified as “work 

performed” under the contract as interpreted by Florida law. 

Therefore, neither of the cases relied upon by GLF nor the express 

language of the 2.2 Subcontract permit recovery of demobilization 

costs under the circumstances in the instant case. Here, based on 

the language of the 2.2 Subcontract, GLF is not entitled to its demobilization costs. Consequently, the district court’s award of the 

demobilization costs is reversed. 

IV.

The district court’s finding that FEDCON improperly terminated GLF is affirmed. The district court’s award of damages is 

affirmed in part and reversed in part. This matter is remanded to 

the district court for any further proceedings necessary for a determination as to whether GLF’s claim for the cost of the extra crane 

mats should be awarded under the Subcontracts and, if so, the 

amount of such damages and to reduce the judgment by the 

$880,000 in demobilization costs. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, 

and REMANDED for further proceedings.

USCA11 Case: 21-10668 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 24 of 24