California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting
March 01, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogMost contractors have heard of design-bid-build, design-build, construction manager at risk, and even public private partnerships, various project delivery methods, which, at their heart, focus on balancing the interests of the various parties involved in a construction project, from owners, to design professionals, to contractors. There’s one project delivery method you may not be as familiar with though: Job Order Contracting, also known by its acronym JOC.
JOC contracting is a project delivery method used on public works projects and has been authorized to be used by California K-12 school districts, community colleges, CalState universities, and the Judicial Council of California, which, among other things, is responsible for the construction of California state courts. It is intended to be used on smaller, independent, long-horizon project typically involving maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Think periodic maintenance of facilities.
JOC contracts are administered by public entities issuing a request for proposals. The public entity then awards a JOC contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lowest responsible bidder then enters into a JOC contract with the public entity. JOC contracts typically have a duration of one (1) year and are limited to a total construction value of $4.9 million increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index. When entering into a JOC contract, a JOC contractor agrees to perform work at prices set forth in a Construction Task Catalog also known as a unit price book which includes current local labor, material and equipment costs. Unit prices are then adjusted by a “bid adjustment factor” based on the JOC contractor’s bid. When work is needed, the public entity will then issue a job order to the JOC contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.
October 10, 2013 —
David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCThe Colorado Pool case has been featured in two past blog entries, including: “An Arapahoe County District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retrospectively,” which discussed the case at the trial court level, and “Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy,” which discussed the case at the Court of Appeals level. In both instances, the courts held that retroactively applying C.R.S. C.R.S. § 13-20-808 to policies in effect prior to the date of the statute’s enactment would be impermissibly retrospective because it would change the coverage under the policy for which the parties had originally bargained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainDavid M. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase
October 19, 2017 —
Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann, & Brianna Long – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed. The Court of Appeals adopted a rule that knowledge of special circumstances at the time of purchase made the special circumstances self-imposed, foreclosing the purchaser’s ability to obtain a variance. This rule would have severely restricted property purchasers’ ability to obtain area variances in Arizona and by extension likely strained property transactions.
The underlying case involved a pawn shop that was proposed in southeast Phoenix. After the property purchaser obtained approval for a required use permit (for a pawn shop) and a variance (for a 500 foot residential setback) from the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, a competing pawn shop filed a special action arguing that the variance was a use variance, not an area variance, beyond the board of adjustment’s authority.
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer attorneys
Nick Wood,
Adam Lang,
Noel Griemsmann and
Brianna Long
Mr. Wood may be contacted at nwood@swlaw.com
Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com
Mr. Noel may be contacted at ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
Ms. Brianna may be contacted at bllong@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions
March 23, 2020 —
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction ExecutiveThe following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences.
Force Majeure
Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause.
Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure.
The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.
The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.
Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.
The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.
The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.
The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”
The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening
February 20, 2023 —
Blanca Berruguete - Construction ExecutiveFire and explosions remain the No. 1 cause of construction and engineering insurance claims, accounting for 27% of the value of insurance claims over the last five years, according to industry claims data analysis conducted by global commercial insurer AGCS.
Natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes or floods, account for almost a fifth of claims by value (19%), followed by defective products (10%). Faulty workmanship or maintenance (8%) and machinery breakdown (7%) round out the top five causes of construction and engineering losses, according to the value of claims.
The Risks and Benefits of Greening
The analysis was conducted on 22,705 insurance claims made worldwide between January 2017 and December 2021. The claims were worth approximately $13.9 billion in value and include the share of other insurers as well as AGCS. But if there is an impression that the risks remain in stasis, that is not the case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Blanca Berruguete, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well
May 03, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read my “musings” here at this construction law blog are well aware, the topic of Virginia mechanic’s liens is one that is much discussed. From the basic statutory requirements to the more technical aspects of these tricky beasts. One aspect of mechanic’s liens that I have yet to discuss in detail it how these liens attach in the situation where the contractor does work for a lessee and not for the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property.
A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court, McCarthy Building Companies Inc. v. TPE Virginia Land Holdings LLC, discusses the interaction of Va. Code 43-20, work on a leasehold, and parties necessary to any litigation relating to a lien for the work on that leasehold. The basic facts, outlined more thoroughly in the linked opinion, are these. MBC provided certain work to TPE Kentuck Solar, LLC on property leased from TPE Virginia Land Holdings, LLC. The lease was for a fixed term and for a fixed amount regardless of the work performed at the property. MBC was unpaid by the Kentuck entity and then recorded a lien on the property and then sued to enforce that lien and for unjust enrichment against TPE Land Holdings. TPE Land Holding filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien and unjust enrichment counts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction
December 23, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs I read through this week’s cases published in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, I came across a case posing an interesting question. The question is, “If your bid is rejected along with everyone else’s, can you complain?” The short answer set out by the Rockingham County, Virginia Circuit Court is “No.” In the case of General Excavation v. City of Harrisonburg the Court looked at the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s bid protest provisions in Va. Code 2.2-4360 and 2.2-4364(C) in the context of General Excavation’s protest of the City’s failure to award it (or anyone else for that matter) the contract on which it was the low bidder. The controlling section of the statute allows a challenge to the award or proposed award of a contract.
In defending the action, the City of Harrisonburg argued that, because the Procurement Act waived some of the city’s sovereign immunity, it must be read strictly. The city further argued (somewhat ironically) that, because no award of the contract was given or even proposed, General Excavation could not bring suit because it would not be challenging the “proposed award or award” of a contract. Not surprisingly, the Rockingham County court held with the City and strictly construed the statute against General Excavation in finding that General Excavation did not have the standing necessary to bring suit under the statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
