Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

February 22, 2021 — Meredith Thielbahr & Nicole Lentini - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
January 25, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order (EO) “Ensuring the Future is Made in All America by All of America’s Workers”, which seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing through the federal procurement process. Note that, just six day earlier, on January 18, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Counsel issued a final rule implementing former President Trump’s July 2019 EO, titled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials” (EO No. 13881) on the then-current Buy American standards. For context, Trump’s proposed revisions – adopted and implemented by the FAR Council earlier this year – imposed three (3) significant changes worth noting: (1) increasing the percentage of domestic content (other than iron or steel) from 50% to 55% that an end product must contain in order to qualify as a “domestic end product”; (2) implementing an even higher increase in the domestic content requirement for iron and steel products to at least 95% U.S. “predominately” iron or steel product; and (3) increasing the price evaluation preference for domestic offerors from 6% to 20% (for other than small business) and 30% (for small businesses). The FAR’s rule became effective January 21, 2021, and applies to solicitations issued on or after February 22, 2021, and resulting contracts let. Biden’s EO rescinds Trump’s EO No. 13881 “to the extent inconsistent with [Biden’s] EO.” However, when dissected, it is clear Biden’s Buy American plan does little to modify thresholds inconsistent with the Trump Administration; rather, the White House’s latest EO implements changes in the form of BA administration. Nonetheless, Biden’s EO does expressly note that it supersedes and replaces Trump’s EO on the same issues. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees and Nicole Lentini, Gordon & Rees Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com Ms. Lentini may be contacted at nlentini@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Albert Jimenez, a contractor working in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania “has filed a civil action against the real estate group that owns the complex over claims that he became injured after slipping on black ice at the property” according to the Pennsylvania Record. The defendant, The Council of Fairmont, is accused “of negligence for failing to identify the dangerous defect in the parking lot, in this case, the patch of black ice, and failing to correct the hazardous condition,” the Pennsylvania Record reports. “Jimenez seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, plus interest and litigation costs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

November 23, 2020 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

December 30, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court agreed remand of the insured's bad faith action to state court was appropriate. Kavanaugh v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138465 (C.D. Calif. Aug. 15, 2019). The insured sued National Union and Great American Insurance Company in state court for failing to defend him in three civil actions. In the alternative, claims were brought against Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. and Chelsea Laing for professional negligence in failing to broker and procure adequate insurance for him. Laing acted as an "agent and/or broker and procured at least one of the policies at issue." Gallagher removed the action based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Although Laing was a citizen of California, Gallagher argued she was fraudulently joined and was a sham defendant, so her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The insured moved to remand because Laing was a proper defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors

August 04, 2021 — Richard W. Brown & Michael D. Angotti - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A bill that would amend the the wage and hour requirements of the New York Labor Law was recently passed by the New York State Legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Cuomo. Bill Number S2766C (the “Bill”) is intended to protect construction workers against wage theft. However, it places a heavy burden on contractors to police the payroll practices of its downstream subcontractors and exposes them to potentially significant liability for the wage and hour violations of their subcontractors. The proposed Bill would make a contractor or upstream subcontractor jointly and severally liable for any wages owed to employees of their subcontractors. The Bill allows for a private right of action for such subcontractor’s employee (or such employee’s representative) to bring a civil or administrative action seeking payment of unpaid wages owed pursuant to Section 198 of the New York Labor Law. In such an action against a subcontractor for unpaid wages, the contractor or upstream subcontractor is not only jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages, but also for the prevailing claimant’s reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and, absent a good faith defense, liquidated damages equal to the amount of the wages owed. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Michael D. Angotti, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Mr. Angotti may be contacted at MAngotti@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

March 23, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
President Trump has promoted his campaign agenda—bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States (especially jobs relating or pertaining to the steel industry.) To do this, he has strengthened domestic preferences through the Buy America and Buy American Acts.[1] 1. Buy America Act: The Buy America Act refers to a collection of domestic contract restrictions pertaining to the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration projects (highway, mass transit and other transportation projects). The USDOT grants provided to state and local governments prohibit the federal government from obligating funds unless the steel, iron and manufactured products used in the projects are produced in the U.S. Generally, Buy America applies to projects where USDOT provides part of the funding, applies to steel, iron and manufactured products, and requires that “all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, for these materials…occur in the United States.”

Buy American: Buy American is critical for construction contractors because FAR 52.225-9 requires that all federal construction contracts under approximately $7 million[2] contain a clause which mandates that contractors use “only domestic construction material in performing [the] contract.” [Note: This requirement is not limited to steel and steel products, as the Buy America Act is.]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

July 20, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia. The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision. 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

The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

June 10, 2024 — Linda Poon - Bloomberg
We’re excited to share that the Bloomberg Green series Water Grab was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist. The series, which includes contributions from several CityLab writers and alums, explores how private investors are commandeering public water for profit at the expense of both the environment and less powerful communities. Below is a sample of stories looking at how investors, private equity firms and Wall Street are taking advantage of the world’s scarce water supply. Read the full series here, which is now in front of the paywall. Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES