48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13

52.236-13 Accident Prevention.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

As prescribed in 36.513, insert the following clause:

Accident Prevention (NOV 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall provide and maintain work environments and procedures which will (1) safeguard the public and Government personnel, property, materials, supplies, and equipment exposed to Contractor operations and activities; (2) avoid interruptions of Government operations and delays in project completion dates; and (3) control costs in the performance of this contract.

(b) For these purposes on contracts for construction or dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements, the Contractor shall—

(1) Provide appropriate safety barricades, signs, and signal lights;

(2) Comply with the standards issued by the Secretary of Labor at 29 CFR part 1926 and 29 CFR part 1910; and

(3) Ensure that any additional measures the Contracting Officer determines to be reasonably necessary for the purposes are taken.

(c) If this contract is for construction or dismantling, demolition or removal of improvements with any Department of Defense agency or component, the Contractor shall comply with all pertinent provisions of the latest version of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1, in effect on the date of the solicitation.

(d) Whenever the Contracting Officer becomes aware of any noncompliance with these requirements or any condition which poses a serious or imminent danger to the health or safety of the public or Government personnel, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor orally, with written confirmation, and request immediate initiation of corrective action. This notice, when delivered to the Contractor or the Contractor's representative at the work site, shall be deemed sufficient notice of the noncompliance and that corrective action is required. After receiving the notice, the Contractor shall immediately take corrective action. If the Contractor fails or refuses to promptly take corrective action, the Contracting Officer may issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action has been taken. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any equitable adjustment of the contract price or extension of the performance schedule on any stop work order issued under this clause.

(e) The Contractor shall insert this clause, including this paragraph (e), with appropriate changes in the designation of the parties, in subcontracts.

(End of clause)

Alternate I (NOV 1991). If the contract will involve (a) work of a long duration or hazardous nature, or (b) performance on a Government facility that on the advice of technical representatives involves hazardous materials or operations that might endanger the safety of the public and/or Government personnel or property, add the following paragraph (f) to the basic clause:

(f) Before commencing the work, the Contractor shall—

(1) Submit a written proposed plan for implementing this clause. The plan shall include an analysis of the significant hazards to life, limb, and property inherent in contract work performance and a plan for controlling these hazards; and

(2) Meet with representatives of the Contracting Officer to discuss and develop a mutual understanding relative to administration of the overall safety program.

[56 FR 55376, Oct. 25, 1991]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Slavoljub Damnjanovic and Seretena Damnjanovic v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Slavoljub Damnjanovic and Seretena Damnjanovic v. United States (1993) ca7 · cites it 2× “One of these regulations, 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 , deals specifically with accident prevention.”

Hills Materials Company v. Donald B. Rice, Secretary of the Air Force (1992) cafc “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 (a)(2) (1989) (emphasis added).”

Fraser v. United States (2007) nyed · cites it 2× “With regards to the safety of the Premises, the Contract incorporated 48 C.F.R. 52.236-13, which requires the contractor to “provide and maintain work environments and procedures which will .”

Rda Construction Corp. v. United States (2017) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 (c), (d). 14 . FAR 52.”

Steven Paul Phillips and Phyllis Diane Phillips v. United States (1992) ca11 “See Federal Acquisitions Regulations System, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 (1991). The court found that the Army Corps was required to insure that the means of anchorage of suspended scaffolds was inspected; furthermore, the judge found that…”

Doud v. United States (1992) nynd · cites it 3× “As to plaintiff’s claim that the United States violated its non-delegable duty to provide plaintiff with a safe working environment under New York Labor Law sections 240 and 241(6), the court holds that these statutes are pre-empted by 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 to the extent that…”

Ryan v. United States (2002) njd “236-13 10 and 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 11 and several courts have found that it validly delegates safety inspections to the contractor, and leaves further government inspections to the discretion of the.”

Kandarge v. United States Dept. of Navy (1994) njd “-12); and (3) an accident prevention clause ( 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 ). The accident prevention clause, referred to in § 52.”

HVAC Construction Co. v. United States (1993) uscfc “236-7 (1989); 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 (1989). 6 The court finds that removal of the barrier was a reasonable precaution taken pursuant to the fire regulations governing the project.”

McDaniel v. United States (2002) ca10 “at 240; see 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 . However, [t]he fact that the contract may have reserved to the United States the right to inspect the work and facilities of the independent contractor, and the right to stop the work, does not in itself override or alter the general rule of…”

Schmoldt v. WADCO Industries, Inc. (1996) azd · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 . In support of its assertion that any decision regarding the safety of the channel form is discretionary, the United States relies heavily upon Clark v.”

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (2021) scd · cites it 2× “113 at 12 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13 ).) Plaintiff reasons that, based on this clause, “it would absolutely be reasonable for Plaintiff to rely on that promise as manifesting Fluor and the government’s intent to confer a right on him.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-13(b) — 1 case

Iron Hawk v. United States (2020) sdd

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.