Construction Law Blog

Disclaimer: The content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided is intended for general information which may or may not reflect the most current developments. Although these materials may be prepared by legal professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. By using this website you expressly agree that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the drafter of the content of this website. If you have a question regarding a particular issue or need legal advice, please contact one of the attorneys at AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC.

The opinions or viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC any link to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites. The links provided are maintained by the respective organizations, and they are solely responsible for the content of their own sites.

Posted By: Ryan Sternoff | Jun 26, 2008 | Topics: Construction Bidding, Government Contracts | View Article

Redacted GAO Decision on Boeing Protest

Further to the June 18, 2008 post, GAO Sustains Boeing Bid Protest of Massive Air Force Contract, the United States Government Accountability Office has released the full, redacted, decision on the Boeing protest, which can be found here.   

While this was certainly the World Series of bid protests, as noted in the previous posting, the process undertaken by Boeing and its team of attorneys is the same required by construction contractors in their protests of most federal procurements.

Posted By: Ryan Sternoff | Jun 25, 2008 | Topics: Construction News and Notes | View Article

Tale of two construction sectors?

The Seattle Times reports the Washington State nonresidential construction industry is more than pulling its weight to pick up the slack caused by the downturn in residential construction.  The article notes that the glut of nonresidential building around the state has helped cushion the state's construction sector from the impact of the housing slump.  Nonresidential construction spending in the Seattle area jumped 20 percent last year, to $9.57 billion.

A walk outside the downtown Seattle offices of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC will tell you that the nonresidential boom does not look to be slowing any time in the immediate future.     

For a link to the Seattle Times article, click here.

Posted By: Ryan Sternoff | Jun 18, 2008 | Topics: Construction Bidding, Government Contracts | View Article

GAO Sustains Boeing Bid Protest of Massive Air Force Contract

Today, the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO") upheld the bid protest of The Boeing Company ("Boeing") of the award of a $35 billion tanker contract to Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co ("EADS").   The award of the massive government contract to the group which includes European based EADS had been widely criticized by lawmakers and patriots alike. 

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | May 19, 2008 | Topics: Rants and Raves | View Article

Two important new rules governing contractors’ business ethics and conduct

As previously advised on April 2, 2008, the ethics of companies doing business with the government and their compliance with standard government contracting requirements has been daily fair in the media.  Two new and related federal acquisition regulation rules, one final and one proposed, are the most recent manifestations of this new focus on contractor ethics. 

The first is a recently published final rule requiring contractors to maintain a written code of business ethics and conduct a sound practice for any business (whether or not it sells to the government).  See A+C Blog Date April 2, 2008

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | May 13, 2008 | Topics: Rants and Raves | View Article

Department of Labor & Industries Decides Sound Transit Concrete Bridge Segments Cast In a Pre-Cast Yard are Subject to Prevailing Wages

Not unexpectedly, the Department of Labor & Industries ("DLI") prodded and cajoled by labor interests has determined that pre‑cast bridge segments, cast in a pre‑cast yard, are subject to prevailing wages.  DLI relied upon three factors in arriving at this conclusion:  (1) the bridge segments are "sophisticatedly" engineered and ultimately their use is "complex", (2) the installation task of tying the rebar required "sophisticated skill", and (3) that the tasks required to build the segments was "beyond a simple repetitive work". 

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | May 12, 2008 | Topics: Contracting | View Article

Design Contract’s Enforceability of Limitation of Liability Provisions

Designers often seek to minimize their legal liability on a project by negotiating limitation of liability (LOL) clauses in their professional contracts.  An LOL clause in a design contract seeks to cap a design professional's liability for professional negligence at some specified dollar amount, often the amount of the designer's fee.  The recent trend is for courts to uphold these clauses as long as those LOL clauses are consistent with public policy and are clearly written.

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | May 09, 2008 | Topics: Rants and Raves | View Article

Contractor Prevails on Differing Site Condition and Notice Issue in Colorado

Recently, the Court of Appeals upheld a differing site conditions clause, reversing a trial court that had concluded that the contractor was not entitled to recover for additional costs incurred due to an unforeseen subsurface conditions.  The trial court had ruled that the contractor had assumed the risk of the subsurface conditions by entering into a fixed price contract.

Posted By: Brett Hill | May 07, 2008 | Topics: Claims, Government Contracts | View Article

City's Pre-Suit Claim Filing Ordinance Not Applicable to GC's Contract Claim

This case (Matia Contractors, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, Court of Appeals, Div I) addressed the question of whether a general contractor who is filing a lawsuit against a public entity for breach of contract is required to give notice to the public entity prior to filing its lawsuit.  Matia was the general contractor on the Joe Martin Field project, Bellingham's municipal baseball stadium.  Bellingham terminated Matia's contract and Matia sued. 

Bellingham argued that Matia's lawsuit was barred because Matia did not notify the City before it filed its lawsuit as required by a City ordinance and state statute.  Cities can enact ordinances providing for claim filing requirements but they cannot be more restrictive than the authorizing state statute.  The authorizing state statute, RCW 4.96.010, provides that the pre-lawsuit claim filing requirements apply only to tort claims (i.e. personal injury, negligence, etc.).  Therefore, because Matia's claim was for breach of contract, and not tort, it was not required to comply with the pre-lawsuit claim filing requirements of the City and the state statute. 

Although the Division One Court of Appeals' ruling in this case may seem self apparent, the Division Three Court of Appeals reached the opposite result in a case decided in 2004. 

Posted By: Brett Hill | May 07, 2008 | Topics: Claims, Damages, Delay Claims, Government Contracts | View Article

Idaho Court denies GC's claim against project engineer

In Beco Constr. v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc., the Idaho Supreme Court denied a general contractor's claim against the project engineer on a public project located in Pocatello.  The general had alleged that the engineer's improper conduct and delays resulted in delays to the general's work on the project and liquidated damages assessed against the general contractor.  The general had alleged that the engineer intentionally interfered with the general's contract with the owner.  The Supreme Court denied the general's intentional interference claim because the engineer, as an agent of the owner, was acting on behalf of the owner. 

Posted By: Sean Russel | Apr 28, 2008 | Topics: Recent Legislation | View Article

Conversions to Washington's Condominium Conversion Law

On August 1, 2008, new law concerning condominium conversions will take effect. SHB 2014 increases the notice requirements for conversions from 90 days to 120 days. Under the existing law, a condominium declarant must give apartment tenants 90 days notice of the conversion before tenants can be required to vacate. Under the new law, the condominium declarant may not require that a tenant vacate his/her unit until 120 days from the date of the notice have lapsed. The new law also increases the amount of relocation assistance that may be required by local jurisdictions. The current limit on relocation assistance is $500 per unit. Under the new law, relocation assistance may be three times the tenant's rental rate, or in cases where a tenant is at least 65 years of age, $1500. SHB 2014 does not apply to conversions where notice is provided prior to August 1, 2008.

See the entire bill by clicking on the following link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202008/2014-S.SL.pdf