COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

January 23, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how careful contract drafting is key. In the most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows. The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

July 02, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partners Yvette Davis and Beth Obra-White have been named co-chairs for the firm’s Construction Law Practice Group. Yvette, Beth and other diverse leaders within the firm play an integral role in the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion initiatives. Congratulations to Yvette & Beth for their new roles as practice group leaders! Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What Is a Construction Defect in California?

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
William Naumann answers that question for the site SuperLawyers. Mr. Naumann notes that a construction defect “is a deficiency in the design or construction of a building or structure,” with specific examples of including “significant cracks in the slab and/or foundation; unevenness in floor slabs caused by abnormal soils movement; leaky roofs, windows, or door,” though he admits that he has not provided an all-inclusive list. He also discusses the deadlines for various types of construction defects, which in California range from 1 year to 10 years, depending on what the defect is. Untreated wood posts only get two years, while steel fences must be free of defects for four. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

October 21, 2019 — Timothy Davis & Willliam Johnston - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects. C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and William Johnston, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Johnston may be contacted at johnstonw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

September 25, 2018 — Andrew Gilbert - Construction Executive
Last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded that the North Atlantic saw the third highest number of major hurricanes to date. North America alone saw three tropical storms and four hurricanes make landfall, the most since 2005. As the 2018 hurricane season takes shape (running from June 1 to Nov. 30), it’s imperative to begin construction site hurricane planning efforts early and to be as prepared as possible prior to any storm. Preparing for a storm can help ensure the safety of not only project and onsite teams, but also of the surrounding communities. 1. DEVELOP AND REVIEW A HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY PLAN Prior to hurricane season, make sure the project contractor has provided the team with a hurricane preparedness and safety plan. Review this plan with the entire team and the owner. This document outlines the exact timeline and steps the contractor will take to safely secure the project site in the event of a storm. The integrated process is especially important when dealing with renovation projects, exterior upgrades or projects that connect new construction to existing facilities. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Gilbert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Gilbert may be contacted at andrew.gilbert@cbre.com

---

Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

June 25, 2019 — G. Scott Walters - Smith Currie
Overview Experienced project delivery team members know too well the importance of timely and proper notice during a construction project. Ideally, contractual notice provisions, and any penalties for non-compliance, should apply equally to all of the contracting parties. For example, failure to comply with a notice provision concerning contract changes could bar a party from pursuing claims. And, untimely or improper notice can, likewise, prevent certain defenses to claims. Nowhere is notice more scrutinized than in the federal government contracting arena. Recently, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued two separate decisions involving the same construction project and the same parties and dealing with two specific aspects of notice in the federal government contracting process. The court’s decisions on the notice issues may, at first, appear to contradict each other or to favor one party over the other. A closer look at these two decisions reveals that notice requirements, in the context of federal government construction contracts, can come in multiple forms and notice is not a “one size fits all” proposition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of G. Scott Walters, Smith Currie
Mr. Walters may be contacted at gswalters@smithcurrie.com

---

FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

April 12, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Buffeted by hurricanes, northwest Florida’s largest-ever infrastructure effort is finally seeing the light at the end of the storm. The three-mile-long bridge across Pensacola Bay is expected to reopen to traffic this spring after an ongoing replacement effort abruptly became an emergency repair job as well. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

January 09, 2015 — Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLP
In lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.” So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.” Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---