SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

December 14, 2020 — Eric Divine - Porter Law Group
Most Public Works Solicitations Are Low Bid The process for awarding public works projects in California is controlled by the Public Contract Code. Generally, regardless of whether the public agency is the State, a county, a city or a local district, the project is awarded to the contractor who is “responsible” and submits the least expensive “responsive” bid. This is generally known as a “low bid” contract. In the context of public works, the terms responsible and responsive have very important meanings. As a result, State and local governments have gotten into very expensive trouble for not following the law. So, to understand how to best present a bid protest on a low bid solicitation, you, as a contractor should have a good understanding of the meaning of these terms. Note: There are other methods of contracting for public works that are not low bid, which are typically called “best value” contracts because the procurement process considers factors other than just price. These methods are typically used for large projects because the added complexity and expense of the procurement process only makes sense when the project is itself complex and expensive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric Divine, Porter Law Group
Mr. Divine may be contacted at edivine@porterlaw.com

---

Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Brad Westmoreland on Ahlers & Cressman PLLC’s blog, presented the history of liens in the U.S., going back to 1789. In fact, the lien was created in response to the need of swift and extensive construction in Washington D.C. “Although it had an abundance of land at the time, America was short on labor and capital,” Westmoreland wrote. “Knowing the state of things, builders were hesitant to provide labor and materials without guarantees that owners would be able to pay.” According to the Ahlers & Cressman PLLC blog, Thomas Jefferson solved the issue by urging “the Legislature of Maryland to pass a law giving builders ‘a lien upon newly created values of [their] labors.’ The new law would provide builders with the assurance that contracts would not result in a total loss should the owners fail to pay.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

December 11, 2018 — Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-Record
Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake lead to the deaths of 57 people and $2 billion in damage, the Los Angeles City Council considered making a list of buildings that were vulnerable to failure in earthquakes and mandating that they be made seismically sound. The measure did not come to pass. Tom LaBonge, a member of the council, is seeking to finally get that inventory done. According to the Los Angeles Times, thousands of buildings in Los Angeles were constructed with a ground floor level that is insufficient to support the rest of the building in the event of an earthquake. These “soft-story” buildings can be reinforced to better resist earthquakes, but first they need to be identified. Owners of apartment buildings worry about the cost of the retrofits, suggesting that if the city is going to come up with mandatory retrofits, they should also “help property owners pay for it,” as Beverly Kenworthy, the executive director of the Los Angeles division of the California Apartment Association told the Times. San Francisco recently did require retrofits, finding about 3,000 apartment buildings that were at seismic risk. Still, San Francisco doesn’t seem to have moved any faster than Los Angeles, as they were responding to the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, seven years before the Northridge quake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BHA Announces New Orlando Location

September 30, 2019 — Donald MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the country’s leading construction forensics and consulting firms has just announced the opening of their second Florida office. Located in Orlando, this new office will join BHA’s existing Miami location, expanding BHA’s presence in the state and increasing the firm’s ability to provide the highest level of services and logistic support to their clients in Central and North Florida, and in particular, the Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee markets. Since 1993, BHA has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting and forensic services and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the United States. In Florida, BHA has been providing construction defect, storm, and general construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results. With the addition of new offices in Orlando, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 7,000 claims. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of Florida-licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of carriers, developers, general contractors and sub-contractors alike. BHA’s new Orlando office is located in the Regions Bank Tower, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando FL, 32801. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Donald MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at donm@berthowe.com

---

Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

September 17, 2018 — Thomas F. Armistead - Engineering News-Record
Heavy rainfall this spring overwhelmed Everglades infrastructure and required operators to discharge nutrient-laden water from Lake Okeechobee to South Florida’s east and west coasts. The resulting toxic algal blooms are fouling Florida’s coast, killing wildlife, driving away vacationers and local beachgoers and threatening public health. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John A. Husmann and Jocelyn F. Cornbleet of BatesCareyLLP analyzed several noteworthy construction defect cases that have already occurred in 2014, as published in Law360. The cases involved “the ‘occurrence’ requirement, contractual liability exclusion and ‘other insurance’ clauses.” Husmann and Cornbleet summarized Owners Insurance Co. v Jim Carr Homebuilder LLC (Alabama), Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Snider (also Alabama), Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnification Insurance Co. (Mississippi), and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”



The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”



In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”



The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”



Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”



The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”



In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”



Read the court’s decision…

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---