Construction Law Blog

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. Read More

- OR -

Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

Date: November 3, 2017  /  Author: James R. Lynch  /  Categories: Construction Bidding, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Indemnity, Delay Claims, Damages, Claims, Change Orders  /  Comments (0)

Whether you negotiate your own subcontracts or rely on your lawyer to do the heavy lifting at contract time, a savvy subcontractor should understand the basic purpose of common subcontract provisions, and be prepared to negotiate for fair and commercially reasonable terms. While most sophisticated subcontractors are skilled at negotiating the core terms of a subcontract—scope of work, price, and time—a few simple but less obvious tweaks to common subcontract terms and conditions can go a long way to protect a subcontractor from unfair results when a dispute arises.

From the desk of an experienced construction lawyer, below are the first three of the top five “boilerplate” provisions that subcontractors too often overlook during contract negotiations, along with tips on language to include and to avoid.

Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

Date: October 5, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Delay Claims, Rants and Raves, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Construction Bidding, Government Contracts  /  Comments (0)

The Washington State Court of Appeals recently addressed an excavation contractor’s responsibilities under the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act (UUDPA), RCW 19.122. That statute was enacted in 2011 and imposed certain statutory duties on parties involved with projects requiring excavation.

In this case, Titan Earthworks, LLC contracted with the City of Federal Way to perform certain street improvements including installation of a new traffic signal. During the process of excavating for the traffic signal, Titan drilled into an energized underground Puget Sound Energy power line. PSE sought damages from Titan and Titan sued the City of Federal Way.

Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

Date: September 27, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Government Contracts, Construction Bidding, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Liens/Bond Claims, Delay Claims, Damages, Claims, Change Orders  /  Comments (0)

The Tunnel Boring Machine (“TBM”) known as “Bertha,” built by Hitachi Zosen Corp in Osaka, Japan, was the world’s largest TBM at 57.5 ft. in diameter.  The TBM was built to drill the Seattle SR 99 Viaduct replacement tunnel.  Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”) has a contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to dig the two-mile tunnel which is now complete. 

In December of 2013, tunneling was stopped ostensibly because a 119 ft.-long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing halted the TBM.  See 2/15 Blog “Bertha is Stuck and She Remains Mired in Controversy.”  Reports are that WSDOT installed the pipe in 2002 to measure groundwater levels and the pipe was allegedly mentioned in the reference material provided to bidders. STP had assumed that the pipe had been removed until the steel casing got stuck in Bertha’s cutting teeth, halting progress.  See 1/30/14 Blog “Big Bertha Stuck: Differing Site Condition Principles Revisited.”

Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

Date: August 23, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Government Contracts, Contracting, Indemnity, Delay Claims, Damages, Construction Defect, Claims  /  Comments (0)

An architect may have to pay over $1 million to a subcontractor who was contractually obligated to rely on the designer’s plans – even though the architect was not a party to the contract.  That was the ruling in U.S. f/u/b/o Penn Air Control, Inc. v. Bilbro Constr. Co., Inc. The dispute involved a $7.3 million design-build contract award to Bilbro Construction (“Bilbro”) to renovate a facility for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Monterey, California. 

Bilbro hired an architect (“FPBA”) to serve as the designer of record and provide all the architectural design services.  FPBA’s design team included an acoustical sub-consultant (Sparling).  The general contractor (design builder) also retained Alpha Mechanical (Alpha) as the mechanical electrical and plumbing (“MEP”) design/build subcontractor.

Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

Date: August 16, 2017  /  Author: Lindsay K. Taft  /  Categories: Government Contracts, Contracting, Regulatory Administration, Construction News and Notes, Liens/Bond Claims, Delay Claims, Damages, Claims, Change Orders  /  Comments (0)

The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, including construction contracts.  Generally speaking, this implied duty requires parties cooperate with one another so that they each obtain the full benefit of their contracted bargain.  Recently, the Court of Appeals (Division II) in Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia discussed this duty’s application to a public works contract.

In early 2014, the City of Olympia published an invitation for bids to replace a culvert that conveyed a creek underneath a paved bike trail.  Nova Contracting was awarded the Project.  The specifications required that Nova submit a number of submittals, the approval of which was required before Nova could commence work.  The contract also provided that the City’s decision with respect to these submittals would be final and that Nova would bear all risk and costs of delays caused by non-approval of any submittals.

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

Date: August 11, 2017  /  Author: Lindsay K. Taft  /  Categories: Notice Issues, Construction News and Notes, Liens/Bond Claims, Delay Claims, Claims  /  Comments (0)

For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy.  RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project.  That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery.  As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties.  For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording.  RCW 60.04.081.

Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects Can Now Get Their Retainage Money Sooner

Date: July 20, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Government Contracts, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Recent Legislation, Claims  /  Keywords: SUBCONTRACTORS ON WASHINGTON PUBLIC PROJECTS CAN NOW GET THEIR RETAINAGE MONEY SOONER 1  /  Comments (0)

Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner.

Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage.

Washington Contractors Should Refrain from Separately Itemizing and Billing Customers for B&O Tax

Date: June 14, 2017  /  Author: Bruce A. Cohen  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Rants and Raves, Memorable Quotes, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Out of the Ordinary  /  Keywords: Washington Contractors Should Refrain from Separately Itemizing and Billing Customers for B&O Tax 2  /  Comments (0)

Construction attorneys rarely encounter state and local tax issues.  However, in a recent negotiation over a disputed change proposal, an Owner’s attorney argued that Washington prohibits recovery of B&O tax as a separately-billed line item in the change proposal.  Given that itemization of B&O surcharges seemed a fairly common business practice, I was initially skeptical of the position.  Upon further review, it became apparent that the Owner’s argument was indeed correct and that many contractors may be unknowingly violating the law by separately itemizing and adding a percentage for B&O tax to their billings or change proposals.

A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

Date: June 1, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Delay Claims, Damages, Claims  /  Keywords: A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily 3  /  Comments (0)

There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors.  Among them:

  • The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court.  Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
  • Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process.  Discovery wars are extremely expensive.  Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
  • Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation.  These types of clauses do the parties no favors

General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Chalkboard Notice is Invalid and Engineer Cannot Waive Notice Requirements

Date: May 30, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Rants and Raves, Memorable Quotes, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Notice Issues  /  Keywords: General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Chalkboard Notice is Invalid and Engineer Cannot Waive Notice Requirements 4  /  Comments (0)

 

I previously posted a blog about the General Construction v. Grant County PUD case and the Court of Appeals’ rulings regarding notice and claim procedures.[i]  The General Construction case is also noteworthy for two other issues that were raised in that case.[ii]  The first issue involved whether a contractual written notice requirement is satisfied when the notice is provided on a chalkboard only.  The second noteworthy issue is whether the Public Utility District’s (“PUD”) own in-house engineer could waive the contractual notice and claim procedures in the PUD’s contract.