7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business
November 21, 2018 —
Eric Weisbrot – JW Surety BondsThe digital transformation of the last two decades has taken hold of the business environment in a powerful way. Companies in nearly all sectors are experiencing a significant shift in the way business is done, with a heavy focus on improved productivity, increase profitability, and enhanced product and service offerings. The construction industry has been historically slow to update its processes and business models in-line with other industries, but technology is currently making its long-awaited appearance in the sector. Construction professionals can embrace these new solutions to run more efficient businesses and keep a closer eye on profitability by reducing
common costs over time.
These are the seven major areas where technology is changing construction.
1 - Business Management
One of the most apparent shifts taking place in the construction industry thanks to technology is the advancement of business processes and systems behind the scenes. Construction managers and job site owners have countless
digital tools at their fingertips to help with managing all aspects of the business. This includes more efficient ways to manage material use and equipment inventory, logging subcontractor hours and pay, and maintaining reporting requirements from regulatory perspectives. Many software solutions integrate with older, legacy systems, making this change an easy one for construction businesses across the board.
2 – Jobsite Productivity
Another area of transformation in construction is productivity on each job site. Technology has offered job owners and general contractors more efficient methods to keep track of project timelines as well as subcontractor progress from start to finish. The technology advancements in this arena come in the form of wearable devices that track work performed, as well as mobile devices that help keep the often mundane tasks necessary for a project’s success up to date and completed on time.
3 – Worker Safety
Although wearables are being utilized in several different ways in the construction business, these devices are making a significant difference in the safety of workers. From smart helmets to digitally enhanced eyewear, workers are alerted to potential hazards on the job that they otherwise could not identify. Similarly, augmented and virtual reality solutions are being used to train workers before they arrive at a job, preparing them for safety concerns well in advance. Even though most licensed and
bonded construction workers have appropriate training throughout their careers, the addition of these resources has the ability to further reduce the risks often associated with construction work.
4 – Surveying and Monitoring
Unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as
drones, are being used throughout construction. These digital tools are equipped with cameras to offer a bird’s eye view of a construction site to help with surveying and identifying potential hazards for workers. Drones also help with inspections throughout a project’s progression, offering some reduction in cost and improving efficiencies.
5 – Improved Materials
Technology is also playing a role in the materials used on job sites. The addition of 3D printing has proven beneficial for construction companies, as concrete composites, plastics, and other materials are being printed and used to create structures on-site. This offers a more cost-effective and accurate way to complete a project.
6 – Self-operating Equipment
Some technology firms are making waves in the construction industry because they are currently developing and implementing
autonomous equipment solutions. Heavy machinery, like excavators, bricklayers, and bulldozers, are already being used on construction sites to help ease the burden of the labor shortage in the industry. While these machines are not yet mainstream, the benefits they offer mean they are likely to become a staple in construction in the years to come.
7 – Big Data
Finally, technology is shifting the construction business by way of big data analytics. With the detailed information from new software solutions, wearable tech, and drones, construction site managers have more data than they have ever had. This influx of information offers a way to analyze job site progress, budgets, timelines, and efficiency for companies large and small.
Author:
Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of
JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions
March 16, 2017 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn February 27, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in the Goodman v. Heritage Builders, No. 16SA193, 2017 CO 13 (Colo. February 27, 2017) case. In ten short pages, the Colorado Supreme Court completely reshuffled Colorado construction law with respect to application of the statutes of limitation and repose on third-party claims in construction defect cases. Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court overruled a series of earlier Court of Appeals' decisions that found C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) (“104(1)(b)(II)”) had no effect on the six-year statute of repose. For context, 104(1)(b)(II) permitted third-party actions for indemnity and contribution to toll until ninety days after the claims in the underlying action were resolved by settlement or judgment. In the construction context, 104(1)(b)(II) was intended to allow a general contractor’s claims against liable subcontractors to toll for the statutorily defined period. This allowed the general contractor to first focus its attention on defending the claims against and thereafter to pursue its claims against the subcontractors.
However, beginning in 2008, in the Thermo Dev., Inc. v. Cent. Masonry Corp., 195 P.3d 1166 (Colo. App. 2008) case, the Colorado Court of Appeals began chipping away at the force of 104(1)(b)(II). This trend continued in the Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc., 2012 COA 24, 296 P.3d 145 decision, the Sierra Pac. Indus., v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, _ P.3d_ decision, and culminating in the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc., 2016 COA 158, reh'g denied (Nov. 23, 2016) decision. Effectively, in these decisions, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that third-party claims could not be brought beyond Colorado’s six-year statute of repose, regardless if they were brought within the ninety day tolling provision set forth in 104(1)(b)(II).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License
March 07, 2011 —
Steven M. CvitanovicContractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.
Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement
May 24, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far?
In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion
April 26, 2021 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsThe Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3]
In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5]
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations
December 16, 2023 —
Bret Marfut - The Construction SeytLess than a month after taking effect, the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) broad changes to the regulations implementing Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (“DBRA”) are facing legal challenges in two federal courts. These newly-filed lawsuits could change things for those trying to navigate the new regulatory landscape. Contractors on DBRA-covered contracts should keep an eye out for developments.
On October 23, 2023, DOL’s final rule updating the regulations implementing DBRA became effective. The first major overhaul of its kind in forty years, the final rule made sweeping changes to the regulations governing payment of prevailing wages on most federally-funded construction contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bret Marfut, SeyfarthMr. Marfut may be contacted at
bmarfut@seyfarth.com
2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law
August 16, 2021 —
Donald Berry - Construction ExecutiveGregory Cokinos, President and CEO, Cokinos | Young
First, experience in the construction industry is of primary importance and vital to successfully negotiating construction contracts and handling construction claims and disputes. Even a mildly complex construction dispute is more than most non-construction lawyers can properly handle. Issues concerning scheduling, productivity, change management and risk shifting (among many others) are complex and unique to construction and can be further complicated by the procedural and substantive law that differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Second, it is essential that your law firm has a culture of representing construction professionals. Understanding construction nomenclature and how construction projects are staffed, organized and documented saves time and money in an already expensive and time-consuming process.
You cannot overstate the advantage of shared resources within an established construction firm when evaluating and handling construction matters. A law firm that dedicates a significant portion of its practice to the construction industry is uniquely positioned to realize this advantage. Finally, as I tell our young lawyers, “success” only comes before “work” in the dictionary. Hard work is the key to successfully negotiating a contract or executing a litigation plan in this complex industry. So, look for a firm that is not afraid of working long days and weekends to achieve success.
Reprinted courtesy of
Donald Berry, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings
September 14, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue.
The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
