to obtain a certificate from the architect, the court of appeals stated, “We find in this case that the issuance of the architect's certificate was merely another method of assuring final completion.” Id. We find Uhlir distinguishable from the facts of this case because TA’s requirement of an all-bills-paid affidavit was meant to avoid the potential of being subject to double liability, not a part of the contract related to completing the construction. 4 . Jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have concluded that where parties contract for literal compliance of the contract, substantial performance does not excuse failure to comply with those express conditions. See, e.g., Hardin, Rodriguez & Boivin Anesthesiologists, Ltd. v. Paradigm Ins. Co., 962 F.2d 628, 636 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); DeValk Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor
holding that where a party has insisted on strict compliance with the contracts terms the doctrine of substantial performance does not apply holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that the substantial compliance doctrine did not apply when a fiduciary failed to issue a timely decision on claimants appeal recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications holding that strict compliance is not required