Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses
October 24, 2022 —
Amanda L. Marutzky - ConsensusDocsSince October 2020, inflation in the United States has seen its fastest increase in more than 30 years. In the last year alone, inflation has remained as high as 8.6%. This hike has impacted everything from diesel to steel. In the construction industry, the higher prices of goods and services directly affect how contractors draft their construction contracts.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has taken note of this dramatic price increase and recently issued guidance to its commanding officers and the procurement community. On May 5, 2022, DoD issued a memorandum titled “Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments.” The stated purpose of the memo is “to assist COs to understand whether it is appropriate to recognize cost increases due to inflation under existing contracts as well as offer considerations for the proper use of EPA when entering into new contracts.” DoD’s memo responds to contractor and contracting officer concerns about the sudden and unexpected cost increases in labor and materials.
Economic Price Adjustments, or EPAs, are adjustments to a stated contract price upon the occurrence of certain contingencies. FAR 16.203-1. They are of three general types – (1) adjustments based on established prices, (2) adjustments based on actual costs of labor or material, or (3) adjustments based on cost indexes of labor or material. Id. Because EPAs allow for adjustments in a contract price, EPA clauses allow a contractor to recover unanticipated increases in its project costs. For example, FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, authorizes a contractor to recover for increases in the cost of material or labor. Such recovery is available when costs increase more than 3%, with a maximum recovery of 10% of the original contract price. See also FAR 52.216-2 through FAR 52.216-4. These EPA clauses provide contractors with relief and protection from issues such as dramatic inflation. EPA clauses, however, are not included in all contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda L. Marutzky, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Marutzky may be contacted at
amarutzky@watttieder.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”
April 08, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - Lexology… but just barely.
Federal courts are “notice” pleading courts. One source writes: “Notice pleading refers to pleading standards that merely notify the opposing party and court of the general issues in the case. In contrast to fact pleading standards, notice pleading standards do not require pleadings to include hyper-detailed facts in support of each claim.”
Some state courts – including Louisiana – are fact pleading courts. Ordinarily, no one practicing in Louisiana state courts would describe the fact pleading requirements for initiating a lawsuit as mandating “hyper-detailing” of the facts, but … why risk it?
In a construction mechanics lien case – the jurisprudence for which requires that courts strictly construe the related law because liens empower lien holders with rights which are “in derogation” of common property ownership rights – the defendant was successful in having the trial court dismiss a lien suit for failing to affirmatively set forth in the complaint (a “petition” in Louisiana) the date of substantial completion. The lien claimant appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim
January 20, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFacing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019).
In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company.
The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals
January 06, 2016 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergManhattan home prices surged to a record in the fourth quarter, propelled by closings of luxury deals in new developments that were agreed to years ago, when construction was just starting on many of the buildings.
The median price of all completed co-op and condominium purchases in the borough jumped 17 percent from a year earlier to $1.15 million, the highest in 27 years of record-keeping, according to a report Tuesday by appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. That tops the previous peak of $1.03 million, set in the second quarter of 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. triggered a plunge in property prices and a near standstill in sales.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats
January 04, 2018 —
William Hussey – White and WilliamsMany clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end.
The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them.
Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration.
IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances.
The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed.
The following examples illustrate these points.
Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return.
Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018.
The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline.
IRS.gov has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Hussey, White and WilliamsMr. Hussey may be contacted at
husseyw@whiteandwilliams.com
Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property
March 30, 2016 —
Charles S. Krolikowski – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPFiling a lawsuit against a government entity can be a daunting task given the complexities of tort claims requirements and governmental immunities. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, Case No. C07020 (Jan. 20, 2016), provided welcome clarification as to the proper legal standard for an inverse condemnation action based upon activities of a government entity which cause water damage to private property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Charles S. Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPMr. Krolikowski may be contacted at
charles.krolikowski@ndlf.com
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction
December 20, 2021 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLast year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”).
“Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy
March 12, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014).
Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States.
After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
