MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk
July 15, 2019 —
Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk.
The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1]
To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history.
The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties).
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys
Steven M. Charney,
Gregory H. Chertoff and
Paul Monte
Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com
Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar
January 21, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogIn a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project.
Background
In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision
August 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer after analyzing the known loss provision in the insured subcontractor's policy. Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754 (9th Cir. June 25, 2015).
The insured was awarded a subcontract to install manufactured stone at the residential project. The stone was affixed to the wall sheathing. The insured also wrapped deck posts with manufactured stone and installed masonry caps on the toe of the stone that was wrapped around the deck posts.
After construction was completed, the insured was called back to the project to inspect cracks in the manufactured stone and masonry caps he installed. The insured told the general contractor that the cracks were likely due to settling. Three months after inspecting the cracks, the insured purchased a CGL policy from Mid-Continent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components
October 11, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn Florida, damage caused by faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage;” however, the cost of repairing or removing defective work does not. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (Auchter). But what happens when the cost of repairing or removing defective work results in loss of use of the tangible property which is not physically injured?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was recently faced with this question in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 21-11199, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sep. 10, 2021). Tricon arose out of the construction of a condominium. Tricon was hired to serve as general contractor for the project and hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The railings installed by the subcontractor were defective and damaged, improperly installed, and failed to meet the project’s specifications. Tricon filed an insurance claim with Nautilus Insurance Company, the subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurer, for the cost to remove and replace the railings.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects
April 11, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Yesterday, the Herald reported that six schools and a nursery have been affected by construction defects in Edinburg. For every eight properties inspected by council, one was found to share analogous issues which caused “a wall to collapse at a city primary school in 2016.” Furthermore, over the course of eighteen months, inspectors will observe more buildings across Edinburg in order to guarantee their “structural safety.”
At Oxgangs Primary School, during Storm Gertrude in January 2016, nine tons of masonry fell from the side of a building. The Herald reported 17 other schools across Edinburg closed due to safety concerns. All schools closed were part of the “same private finance initiative.” Moreover, there have been 20 other examples of defects found that are alike, in which checks were “carried out at public buildings.”
Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal democrat who represents Edinburg West, states that the findings were “scandalous,” and “simply not good enough.” In addition, Jardine points out that the council is responsible for buildings to meet the highest of standards, and proper checks are necessary, in order to ensure the safety of their children. Lastly, Jardine suggests that the Scottish government should no longer rely on the funding from local authority. Instead, she proposes that the government must be accountable for “improving council funding.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts
October 21, 2019 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationMy advice to home builders has long been to arbitrate construction defect claims instead of litigating them in front of juries. Based on my experience and watching others litigate claims, I have learned that home builders usually fare better in arbitration than in jury trials, both in terms of what they have to pay the homeowners or HOAs and also in what they recover from subcontractors and design professionals. Because of these dynamics, conventional wisdom has been that builders should arbitrate construction defect claims. For several reasons, I am now questioning whether the time is right to consider a third option.
First, plaintiffs’ attorneys dislike arbitration and will continue their attempts to do away with arbitration for construction defect claims. In 2018, the Colorado Legislature considered HB 18-1261 and HB 18-1262. While both bills were ultimately killed, they showed the plaintiffs’ attorneys disdain for arbitration, and serve as a warning that attempts to prevent arbitration legislatively will continue. If the legislature does away with the ability to arbitrate construction defect claims, and that is the only means of dispute resolution contained in a builder’s contracts, that builder may find itself in front of a jury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
2017 California Construction Law Update
December 15, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogTo say it’s been an exciting year in politics would be an understatement.
While most of the nation’s attention was focused on the presidential election, state legislatures, including California’s, were busy at work. The California State Legislature introduced 3099 bills during the second session of the 2015-2016 session of which 808 bills were signed into law. 2016 saw the enactment of several bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related to alternative project delivery methods, prevailing wages, and licensing. Each of the bills discussed below takes effect on January 1, 2017.
Project Delivery
AB 2126 – Amends Public Contract Code section 6701 to increase the number of projects the Department of Transportation may use the construction manager/general contractor method of project delivery from no more than 6 projects, to 12 projects, of which 8 of the 12 projects would be required to use Department employees or consultants under contract with the Department to perform all project design and engineering services.
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
Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity
July 22, 2019 —
Edward J. Hermes - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction BlogThere are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity.
Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor.
To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edward J. Hermes, Snell & WilmerMr. Hermes may be contacted at
ehermes@swlaw.com
