Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry
January 09, 2023 —
Mohammad Saki - AEC BusinessThe linear workflows used in the construction industry, such as the RIBA plan of work, have a history of starting when the previous phases end. The stages in these workflows are often distinct and sequential, and it might be difficult or expensive to go back after a stage is finished. Design reviews are required in this method, which is also known as the “Waterfall,” and they must be completed before moving on to the next level.
Cross-phase iterations are a rare symptom of problems, and the majority of design specifications will be locked early to prevent rework. Additionally, common planning and scheduling methods for the construction industry, like the Critical Path Method (CPM) and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), lack the ability to represent feedback and iteration in projects because they only permit one-way progression.
As a result, these processes have come under fire for being a linear paradigm that encourages a fragmented approach to project management, and the need for a more iterative procedure has increased.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mohammad Saki, AEC Business
Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot
January 17, 2023 —
Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs we close out the last remaining weeks of 2022, all eyes look ahead to 2023. Below is a quick snapshot highlighting three trends and predictions that may continue to shape the commercial real estate landscape in 2023.
- Office space and the digital economy present attractive investment opportunities and potential. Even with all of the chatter about office vacancies during the last three years, according to Moody’s Analytics, “it’s important to note that none of the regions across the U.S. have seen office vacancy rates dip below their pre-pandemic Q4 2019 levels.” This might be due to creative and reimagined office spaces as the return to office continues. The hybrid work format and flexibility in spaces will continue in 2023.
- Data analytics and Proptech will continue to play a larger role, allowing property owners and tenants to collaborate to provide more efficiency, whether to achieve sustainability goals or leverage technology like immersive experiences to entice tenants to new spaces. An increase in demand for technology to solve issues will most likely continue in commercial real estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam J. Weaver, PillsburyMr. Weaver may be contacted at
adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash
December 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the New York Times, a Bel Air hillside mansion in Los Angeles has outraged neighbors who refer to the unfinished, 30,000 square foot and almost 70 feet high building as “the Starship Enterprise.” Despite legal violations such as tearing down the original structure without the city’s permission, the height being twice the legal limit, and digging into the hillside though the site is an “earthquake-induced landslide area,” the case has not progressed much in four years because the actual owner is a shell company.
The New York Times summarized the issues at 901 Strada Vecchia as follows: “After the unapproved teardown and leveling of the hillside, the construction team did ask permission to grade the hill but used a survey that made it appear that workers had not already removed significant loads of dirt. Then they joined two buildings that were supposed to be separate and built so high that they drastically violated the city’s height limit.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home
June 14, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in the case of Kizor v. Architects ruled that Mr. Kizor could not make construction defect claims against the architect and contractor of his home, as the defects had caused significant damage to the former owners, and it was they, not Kizor, who could have asserted those claims.
The background of the case was that John and Miranda Redig hired BRU Architects to design a home. During construction in 2000, they wrote to the roofing supplier complaining about leaks. The leaks were caulked, but the roof continued leaking during rains. The Redigs sold their house to Kizor in 2002, with an addendum to the sale contract protecting themselves from liability for further problems with the roof. “Seller has no responsibility for the condition of the roof and stucco and buyer absolves seller of any liability in connection therewith.”
In 2006, Kizor sued the architects, contractor, and subcontractor. The defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted. Kizor appealed, and in this current court case, appeal was denied.
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)
December 13, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension.
“Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id.
“To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988).
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
Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding
February 27, 2019 —
Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials.
In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts
May 20, 2015 —
Sho Chandra and Steve Matthews – BloombergThe surge in April housing starts sends a clear signal that bad weather was the root cause of weak readings in the first quarter. The question now is whether the rebound is strong enough to lift the world’s largest economy.
Builders broke ground on 1.14 million homes at an annualized rate last month, the most since November 2007 and up 20.2 percent from March, figures from the Commerce Department showed Tuesday in Washington. It was the single-biggest monthly surge since 1991, with both the Northeast and Midwest taking part, clearly showing milder temperatures had a hand.
The rebound in home building is shaping up to be large enough to make a meaningful contribution to economic growth this quarter. Nonetheless, because residential construction accounts for less than 4 percent of the economy, it would take big gains to make up for what’s likely to be sustained weakness in manufacturing caused by slowing exports and cuts in business investment by the energy industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sho Chandra, Bloomberg and
Steve Matthews, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
