The court determined that clauses that bar entitlement to recovery for all delay claims are unenforceable under the Miller Act, but clauses that establish what the contractor may recover (i.e. the amount or measure of recovery) are enforceable. The court cited the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit's holding that " the amount a subcontractor is entitled to recover from a surety on a Miller Act bond 'must be determined by reference to the subcontract.' United States ex rel. Woodington Elec. Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 545 F.2d 1381, 1383 (4th Cir. 1976). " The McCorvey court upheld the clause, reasoning that " the clause here does not determine when Kirlin may receive compensation for delays, but rather how much Kirlin may receive: the amount Clark is entitled to recover from the United States. " The nuance applied in interpreting the no-damages-for-delay clause in the McCorvey case illustrates the importance of understanding the extent of enforceability of these clauses. Stay Up to Date Did you know that in addition to the DFI website, there are several ways to stay up to date on DFI and the deep foundations industry? From the home page of www.dfi.org, you can access DFI's Facebook Page, LinkedIn Page and Group, X (Twitter) Feed and YouTube Channel. Or you can visit these social media platforms and search for " Deep Foundations Institute " or @DFI_Tweets on X. 126 * DEEP FOUNDATIONS * JULY/AUG 2024https://dfi.org https://www.asce.org/career-growth/civil-engineering-certification