On a project involving the construction of a new public library in Medford, a general contractor asserted claims against the City for payment of “extended general conditions costs” incurred due to delays in the project arising from the COVID-19 orders of the Governor pausing all non-critical public construction projects, and from the performance of “extra work.” The City sought summary judgment on grounds that the contractor was precluded from recovering such costs by the no-damages-for-delay provision in the contract, which prohibited recovery of any costs for project delays, including delays caused by the City or its architect, and limited the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time to complete the project. The City had agreed to the time extensions requested by the contractor for the delays. The general contractor asserted, however, that it was entitled to payment under G.L. c. 30, §39O, which requires payment of certain expenses incurred by a contractor due to written orders of a city or town to “suspend, interrupt or delay” a project. On the City’s motion for summary judgment, although the Court agreed that G.L. c.30, §39O would control over the no-damages-for-delay provision in the contract, it ruled that the statute did not apply because neither the Governor’s COVID-19 orders, nor any request of the City for the performance of extra work, constituted written orders of the City to “suspend, interrupt or delay” the project under the statute. And since, as the Court ruled, the extended general conditions costs sought by the contractor were delay damages of the kind contemplated in the no-damages-for-delay provision in the contract, the contractor was precluded from recovering those costs under that contract provision. Consequently, the Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the contractor’s claims.