Baltimore County v. Aecom Services, Inc.
28 A.3d 11
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- DMJM contracted as architect for the Baltimore County Detention Center expansion and could be paid only with written amendments approved by the County Council.
- Amendment on Sept. 19, 2005 increased contract to $4,785,752.36 and was signed/approved by County officials.
- County sued for breach and negligence; DMJM counterclaimed for base services plus $1.6–$2.2 million in additional services; trial included DMJM spreadsheets categorizing claims A–E.
- Trial evidence showed no county-approved amendment covering the additional services; jury awarded DMJM $1,653,600.88 for damages, including additional services portion.
- Settlement in 2010 reserved base-contract amount and prejudgment/postjudgment issues, leaving remaining claim for additional services on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DMJM's claim for additional services required a County Council–approved contract amendment | DMJM argued changes fall within contract and do not require new council approval. | County argues amendments exceeding limits or two-year terms require council approval; contract language and charter enforce this. | DMJM's claim for additional services barred; contract amendments required council approval |
| Whether the one-year statute of limitations barred DMJM's counterclaim for additional services | DMJM contends timely claim under contract; estoppel not raised. | County contends limitations issue bars claim; no timely amendment. | Not reached; remanded to address first issue; held in DMJM's favor on timing not dispositive |
| Whether prejudgment interest should have been submitted to the jury | DMJM requested jury instruction allowing prejudgment interest as a matter of right if amounts were liquidated. | County argued no liquidated amount existed pre-verdict; trial court did not abuse discretion in not submitting pre-verdict prejudgment interest. | Court did not abuse discretion; pre-judgment interest not required to be submitted to jury before verdict; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. Baltimore County, 155 Md.App. 415 (2004) (public procurement rules boxing government contracts; strict compliance)
- Gontrum v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 182 Md. 370 (1943) (municipal contracts require formal powers; ultra vires if not followed)
- In re State's Comm'n on Human Relations v. Baltimore City Dep't of Rec. & Parks, 166 Md.App. 33 (2005) (settlement void if charter procedures not followed)
- Taylor v. Wahby, 271 Md. 101 (1974) (unliquidated damages; prejudgment interest from verdict date)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc., 174 Md.App. 681 (2007) (prejudgment interest discretionary when damages are unliquidated)
- Revere Nat'l Corp. v. Montgomery County, 341 Md. 366 (1996) (government contracts binding only when properly executed)