{"id":897914,"date":"2020-09-02T15:26:05","date_gmt":"2020-09-02T21:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=897914"},"modified":"2020-09-02T15:26:08","modified_gmt":"2020-09-02T21:26:08","slug":"negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/","title":{"rendered":"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Maria L. Panichellie and Michael A. Richard | GovCon Examiner<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attention contractors \u2013 there is a new theory of recovery<\/a> to consider! \u2026Or, is there?\u00a0 Truth is, it might depend on what agency you are doing business with, and where you bring your case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A trio of interesting \u2013 and arguably contradictory \u2013 Board of Contract Appeals decisions addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions.  This theory predicates contractor recovery on the Government\u2019s failure to engage in meaningful discussions during competitive procurements under FAR Part 15.  More specifically, on the Government\u2019s failure to identify for the contractor any significant weaknesses and deficiencies in the contractor\u2019s proposal.  But, is the theory really viable?   In this two-part series, we will take a look at recent case law from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and recent case law from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, and explore what these cases say about contractor\u2019s rights to recover under this new theory.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week, we\u2019re taking a look at the 2019-2020 Chugach<\/em> decisions from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (\u201cASBCA\u201d).  Let\u2019s dive in!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ASBCA \u2013 THE CHUGACH<\/em> CASES<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We will start with a little background on the Chugach<\/em> cases.  There, NAVFAC (\u201cthe Agency\u201d) had released a Request for Proposals (\u201cRFP\u201d) for a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (\u201cIDIQ\u201d) contract relating to base operations support services at Agency installations throughout the Northwest.  A competitive FAR Part 15 procurement, the RFP provided that offerors would be evaluated on the basis of price and six non-price factors.  The \u201cBasis of Evaluation\u201d included an Agency evaluation concerning the adequacy of offerors\u2019 proposed staffing levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its initial evaluation, the Agency determined that CFSI\u2019s proposed staffing levels were \u201csignificantly low\u201d in some areas, and that this constituted a \u201csignificant weakness\u201d in CFSI\u2019s proposal.\u00a0 However, when the Agency later opened discussions with offerors (after establishing a\u00a0competitive range\u00a0pursuant to\u00a0FAR 15.306), it failed to advise CFSI of these perceived inadequacies.\u00a0 Subsequently, based on Agency revisions to the solicitation, CFSI actually\u00a0decreased<\/em>\u00a0proposed staffing levels.\u00a0 Still, the Agency said nothing about the inadequate staffing levels; rather, the Agency told CFSI that its \u201coverall recurring work FTEs are within an acceptable range.\u201d\u00a0 Meanwhile, internally, the Agency had determined that CFSI\u2019s revised proposal \u201cdid not adequately address the government\u2019s concern and the significant weakness remained.\u201d\u00a0 Despite this significant weakness, the Agency ultimately issued an award to CFSI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After award, as the ABCA explained it, CFSI \u201cstruggled to satisfy the Navy\u2019s demands under the contract \u2026 the Navy\u2019s actions [had] caused [CFSI] to negotiate staffing levels (and, as a direct result, firm-fixed pricing) for this contract that were materially inadequate and that caused significant losses.\u201d  Accordingly, CFSI thereafter filed a certified claim for roughly thirty-six million dollars, the denial of which CFSI then appealed to the ASBCA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the ASBCA, CFSI argued that it was entitled to compensation for the significant loss it incurred because of the Agency\u2019s actions during contract formation.  Count I of CFSI\u2019s complaint was premised on what it called a \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory.  CFSI argued that, pursuant to FAR 15.306, the Government had an obligation, if it chose to enter into discussions with offerors, to enter into meaningful<\/strong> discussions \u2013 i.e. discussions that would advise offerors of the deficiencies and significant weaknesses in their proposals.  CFSI asserted that the Government\u2019s failure to do so was negligent, and resulted in CFSI incurring substantial costs.  This, according to CFSI, entitled CFSI to recover its losses from the Agency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Government moved to dismiss CFSI\u2019s claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that CFSI\u2019s negligent negotiations \u201cclaim\u201d was, in reality, nothing more than a bid protest, challenging the Agency\u2019s evaluation of CFSI\u2019s bid, not a claim, relating to the performance of a contract.\u00a0 The Board,\u00a0in a May 2019 decision, disagreed. The Board reasoned that CFSI was not a disappointed bidder, but rather, an awardee of a contract. The Board further found that the negligent negotiations claim absolutely \u201crelated\u201d to the contract.\u00a0\u00a0 Reasoning that the regulatory requirements that govern exchanges with offerors under FAR 15.306(d) exist for the benefit of the contractor (and drawing an analogy to previous Federal Circuit precedent) the ABSCA held that an Agency\u2019s violation of FAR 15.306(d) could properly form the basis of a CDA claim.\u00a0 The Board also noted that CFSI\u2019s Count I \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d claim was in some ways related to its Count II \u201csuperior knowledge\u201d claim, which the Board had,\u00a0in an earlier April 2019 summary judgment decision, declined to dismiss. \u00a0(The\u00a0doctrine of superior knowledge\u00a0is premised upon the notion that where \u201cthe government has knowledge of vital information that will affect a contractor\u2019s performance, the government is obligated to share that information.\u201d)\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This first\u00a0Chugach<\/em>\u00a0decision made it clear that the ASBCA is willing to entertain, and believes it has jurisdiction to hear, claims brought on the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory.\u00a0\u00a0 The Board subsequently doubled down on this thinking in a\u00a0May 2020 decision, when it refused to grant the Government the summary judgment that it sought.\u00a0 In its summary judgement motion, the Agency argued that CFSI\u2019s negligent negotiations claim must be dismissed because CFSI could not prove that it would have significantly increased its staffing had the Navy alerted CFSI to the \u201csignificant weaknesses\u201d relating to inadequate staffing.\u00a0 The Agency further argued that, while it admittedly had found significant weaknesses in\u00a0earlier<\/em>\u00a0versions of CFSI\u2019s proposal, it did not internally note any significant weaknesses on the\u00a0later<\/em>\u00a0versions of CFSI\u2019s proposal, and therefore had no obligation to tell CFSI of such alleged significant weaknesses.\u00a0 The Board was not at all persuaded by these arguments.\u00a0 Reasoning that there was a material factual issue as to whether the Navy properly informed CFSI of the significant weakness, it denied the Government\u2019s motion for summary judgment with respect to Count I. \u00a0\u00a0Though the language of the decision is not entirely clear, this could be interpreted to imply that the Government may be held responsible for its failure to alert contractors, during FAR Part 15 discussions, to any significant weakness or deficiency, whether or not the Government had actually identified such weakness internally. In other words, so long as the weakness\/deficiency\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0have been identified, the contractor should have been alerted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taken together, these decisions demonstrate that the ASBCA is willing to hear contractor claims premised on negligent negotiations.  So, what does that mean for you?  Well, if you incur damages during performance of a contract as a result of a significant weakness in your proposal, which the government was aware of, but failed to address with you during FAR Part 15 Competitive Range Discussions, you may very well be able to recover those damages from the Government by asserting a negligent negotiations claim before ASBCA.  It is something you should definitely explore with counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, there are still a fair number of open questions relating to this theory of recovery.\u00a0 Most notably, what, exactly, a contractor must establish to show that the Government \u201cfailed to properly inform\u201d the contractor of the significant weaknesses and deficiencies in its proposal?\u00a0 It is also unclear to what extent this \u201cnegligent negotiation\u201d theory might overlap or dovetail with superior knowledge claims.\u00a0 Finally, it is not yet clear how other forums will react to this theory of recovery, or the underlying rationale espoused by the ASBCA.\u00a0 Well, at least, we will have to wait and see how the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit view the issue.\u00a0 A recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (\u201cCBCA\u201d) case,\u00a0Hamstra Chico LLC, might provide some insight on that Board\u2019s opinion.\u00a0 But more on\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0case next time, in part two of our series\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maria L. Panichellie and Michael A. Richard | GovCon Examiner Attention contractors \u2013 there is a new theory of recovery to consider! \u2026Or, is there?\u00a0 Truth is, it might depend on what agency you are doing business with, and where you bring your case. A trio of interesting \u2013 and arguably contradictory \u2013 Board of… Continue reading The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[9895,224,11284],"class_list":["post-897914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-contracts","tag-advise-consult","tag-construction-contract","tag-negligent-negotiations","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\"},\"wordCount\":1346,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Construction Contract\",\"Negligent Negotiations\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Contracts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\",\"name\":\"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00\",\"description\":\"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1","datePublished":"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/"},"wordCount":1346,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Construction Contract","Negligent Negotiations"],"articleSection":["Construction Contracts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/","name":"The \u201cNegligent Negotiations\u201d Theory of Recovery \u2013 Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-09-02T21:26:05+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-02T21:26:08+00:00","description":"addressing the \u201cnegligent negotiations\u201d theory of recovery opens up potential new avenues of relief for contractors\u2026but leave many open questions","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/negligent-negotiations-theory-of-recovery\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3LAu","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897914","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=897914"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897914\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":897915,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897914\/revisions\/897915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=897914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=897914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=897914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}