Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act
June 08, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows:
For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that–
(A) the claim is made in good faith;
(B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief;
(C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and
(D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.
41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification.
The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe owner of a regional water treatment plant in California has filed a lawsuit against the where they operate. Construction defects lead to cost overruns at the Modesto Irrigation District’s water treatment plant. Now the question is whether MID or Modesto will be paying for the expenses. Both parties sued Black & Veatch and others, receiving $14.9 million.
But the problems have lead to the cost of the water treatment plant expansion ballooning to $107.5 million, a big jump over the planned $62.9 million. Also, instead of being completed in 2009, the completion date has been pushed to 2015.
Modesto originally agreed to pay for the expansion, which will increase plant’s ability to provide drinking water to 66 million gallons per day with the agreement that MID would provide the water at the cost of producing it. But now the cost to Modesto of those additional 36 million gallons a day is an additional $44.6 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy
June 18, 2014 —
Victoria Stilwell – BloombergAmerican manufacturers are churning out more goods and homebuilders are regaining confidence as evidence mounts that the world’s largest economy is making a comeback after a slow start to 2014.
Output at factories, mines and utilities rose 0.6 percent in May, reflecting gains at makers of automobiles, business equipment and construction supplies, according to Federal Reserve data today in Washington. Builder sentiment this month jumped by the most in almost a year, another report showed.
Improving consumer and business spending means assembly lines will probably remain busy in the second half of the year, giving growth a boost after the expansion sputtered in the first quarter. The reports, which came as the International Monetary Fund cut its 2014 forecast for the U.S., give Fed policy makers meeting this week reason to continue trimming stimulus at a measured pace to ensure the rebound is sustained.
“We’re back on track,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, and the second-best production forecaster over the last two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. “Everything is growing at a pretty good clip.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, BloombergMs. Stilwell may be contacted at
vstilwell1@bloomberg.net
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!
May 24, 2018 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogEvery few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1]
The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Do You Have an Innovation Strategy?
November 08, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessConstruction and engineering are among the top five industries ripe for disruption according to research by PwC. Will innovation come from tech companies and startups, or could established firms be proactive? For Granlund, founded in 1960, innovation is a strategic essential and a core competency.
Granlund is a Finnish design, consultancy, and software services firm specializing in energy efficiency. It employs more than 800 people in 20 locations in Finland and in its offices in Shanghai and Dubai. The company is known internationally for being in the vanguard of building information modeling and for real estate management software development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back
October 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog“[I]t ain’t how hard you hit; it’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. . . .” – Sylvester Stalone as Rocky Balboa in Rocky Balboa.
Ding, ding.
The Little Case That Roared
Two years ago we wrote about a case that caused an uproar in the homebuilding industry – Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held for the first time that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims involving “actual,” as opposed to “economic,” damages in new residential housing.
It was a blow to the homebuilding industry who back in 2002, following a wave of construction defect lawsuits involving new residential housing, lobbied the State Legislature for the Right to Repair Act which gave homebuilders an opportunity to repair defects before being sued in court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly
November 15, 2022 —
Matthew Devries - Best Practices Construction LawToday’s guest post is by one of my favorite construction lawyers and friends, Burr partner Ned Nicholson in our Columbia, SC office. Ned regularly represents clients in construction defect and compensation claims, manufacturer/dealer disputes, and insurance coverage lawsuits. He is also a South Carolina certified mediator. Ned can be reached at nnicholson@burr.com or (803) 799-9800.
If you are a homebuilder, residential housing developer, construction industry insurer, or any one of the many participants in the industry providing affordable and decent housing for the citizens of South Carolina, you are already aware that South Carolina courts have for decades prioritized the promotion of consumer (i.e., home buyer) rights, usually at the expense of the providers of housing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; the goal is laudable. But as in so many things, the implementation has been extremely costly for the residential construction industry as a savvy plaintiff’s bar has taken advantage of grey areas that are inevitably created in our judicial system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Devries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. Devries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
