Case Explained: AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 1:19-CV-02811-WJM-KAS) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) on its breach-of-contract claims and against Flatiron Constructors, Inc.’s joint venture counterclaims. The appellate court rejected the joint venture’s arguments that four specific district court rulings warranted a new trial. First, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the joint venture’s motion for judgment against itself on ATS’s breach-of-contract claim. Applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez*, the Tenth Circuit determined that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not render a plaintiff’s case constitutionally moot under Article III, regardless of whether the defendant seeks to force a settlement or assumes the role of plaintiff. Consequently, ATS retained a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, and the district court acted within its discretion by allowing the claim to proceed to trial rather than forcing a settlement on an unwilling party. Second, the court affirmed the denial of the joint venture’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Reviewing de novo, the court found that the evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that the joint venture waived the subcontract’s requirement to submit change orders to the Design Change Control Board through its conduct, including submitting an order without approval and later shelving others for litigation resolution. Additionally, the court held there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to find that the proposed changes were outside the scope of the original work, even if some specific chart descriptions were missing, based on project manager testimony regarding “additional work.” Third, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court clarified that while Colorado law implies this duty in contracts allowing for discretion, it is not an inherent element of every breach-of-contract claim. Furthermore, the joint venture failed to preserve the theory because it was not raised in the final pretrial order, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) to prevent manifest injustice given the significant delay in raising the issue. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of the joint venture’s motion to add fraud counterclaims one year after the final pretrial order was entered. Applying the abuse of discretion standard and the “manifest injustice” test under Rule 16(e), the appellate court found that the joint venture failed to demonstrate diligence or good faith, having waited sixteen months after discovering alleged facts to plead fraud. The court also agreed with the district court’s finding that allowing the new claims would cause substantial prejudice to ATS, which had spent years preparing for a breach-of-contract trial rather than a fraud case, and that reopening discovery would disrupt the orderly and efficient administration of justice. The practical consequence is that the jury verdict awarding ATS $5.259 million in compensatory damages, plus interest, stands as final, and the joint venture’s counterclaims for breach of contract and teaming agreement are dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.