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 -

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.

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 1  /  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: Courts Continue to Struggle with Mike M. Johnson Case

Date: May 24, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Notice Issues, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Delay Claims, Claims, Change Orders  /  Keywords: General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Courts Continue to Struggle with Mike M. Johnson Case 2  /  Comments (0)

Another court in Washington was asked to apply the Mike M. Johnson[i] decision to a contractor’s claim for extra work.  This time it was the Division III Court of Appeals in Washington.  The Division III Court of Appeals, which covers all of Eastern Washington, had a hand in the original Mike M. Johnson case.  That court is the intermediary court that ruled in favor of the contractor in Mike M. Johnson.  It held that there were issues of fact as to whether Spokane County, in the Mike M. Johnson case, had actual notice of the changed conditions and, thus, waived the notice and claim procedures that the County was attempting to rely upon.  The Division III Court of Appeals was later overruled by the Washington State Supreme Court, which held as a matter of law that the County of Spokane had not waived the notice and claim procedures.  This time around, the Division III Court of Appeals, for the most part, ruled in favor of the public entity and followed the Mike M. Johnson decision.

Owner Awarded Liquidated Damages Following a Termination for Convenience

Date: February 24, 2016  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Notice Issues, Government Contracts, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Delay Claims, Claims, Change Orders  /  Comments (0)

As discussed in previous blog posts, a Termination for Convenience (“TforC”) clause allows a party (generally, the owner or general contractor) to stop work for just about any reason without having to pay for anticipated profit or unperformed work. Read more here and here.  Recently, the Washington Court of Appeals decided SAK & Associates, Inc. v. Ferguson Construction, Inc. in which the Court held that all that is required to trigger a TforC clause is a statement that termination is being invoked for the convenience of the terminating party.  Read more here.

Contractors Should Limit Their Exposure to Consequential Damages and Ensure Liquidated Damages are the Owner’s Sole and Exclusive Remedy

Date: October 14, 2015  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Claims, Damages, Delay Claims, Construction News and Notes, Contracting  /  Comments (0)

There is some confusion in construction about the terms “liquidated damages” and “consequential damages,” so brief definitions are in order:

  • “Liquidated damages” (sometimes called “stipulated damages”) are damage amounts the parties designate in the contract for the injured party (Owner) to collect as compensation for breach of contract, and are someimtes tied to project completion or milestone dates.
  • “Consequential damages” are losses that do not flow directly and immediately from the breach of contract, but result indirectly from the breach.  For example, in hotel construction, if the hotel does not open on time, consequential damages could be the revenue lost by the hotel operator.

A Contractor should be aware of the relationship between liquidated damages and consequential damages.  These concepts are mutually exclusive.  Owners should provide for one or the other, but not both.  Liquidated damages are essentially a type of consequential damages, but are intended to provide certainty by removing the difficulty of proving damages.  Generally, liquidated damages should replace consequential damages, not supplement them.

Gov. Inslee Flashes his Cards as to Defenses Against Tunnel Contractor

Date: August 12, 2015  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Government Contracts, Construction News and Notes, Rants and Raves, Delay Claims, Claims  /  Comments (0)

The Alaskan Way Tunnel Project remains front and center in the news.  Hardly a day goes by when we are not bombarded with an article about the status of the tunnel project.  As it sits now, tunneling is to resume in November of 2015, pushing the completion of the project back until March of 2018.  In May, the contractor, Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP), received a favorable recommendation from the Dispute Review Board (DRB) that the eight-inch steel well casing, which STP claimed shut down the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), was a differing site condition.  Recently KCPQ-TV’s Brandi Kruse interviewed Gov. Inslee concerning the tunnel to replace Seattle’s aging Alaskan Way Viaduct.  The interview was interesting because it provided a subtle preview as to Washington State’s stance as to its defenses against the tunnel contractor’s potential differing site conditions claim.

Frustrated Early Completion: Who Owns the Float?

Date: August 6, 2015  /  Author: Ceslie Blass  /  Categories: Claims, Delay Claims, Contracting, Government Contracts  /  Comments (0)

There are many economic advantages to the acceleration and early completion of a project.  By completing a project earlier than the contract completion date, a contractor is able to reduce the project overhead costs, and therefore maximize revenue.  The owner, in turn, benefits from the contractor's ability to bid the project at a reduced price, which reflects the reduced overhead anticipated by early completion.  Thus, the economic advantages of a contractor's early completion are generally experienced by all parties.  An early completion schedule, however, also reduces the amount of float available to the project.[i]

Big Bertha: Contractor Prevails On Differing Site Conditions Issue - Now What?

Date: May 27, 2015  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Construction News and Notes, Delay Claims, Claims  /  Comments (0)

Early this month, the three-member Board appointed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) and Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”) to assist in resolving contractual disputes on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project issued its latest recommendation.  The question before the Board was narrow  in  scope:   was  an  eight-inch  steel well-casing within the work zone adequately identified in the contract?  The Board determined that the well-casing was clearly identified in the contract, but the contract documents did not clearly identify that the casing was made of steel.  The DRB’s recommendation was that the contractor encountered a differing site condition.