A Tip For Performance Bond Obligees: For Maximum Protection, Obtain Increase Riders With Change Orders

You’re the authorized agent of a North Carolina county that has entered into an $8 million contract with a general contractor for the construction of a new administrative building.  The performance bond issued on behalf of the GC is in the statutory form, and therefore applies not only to base scope, but also to “any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract…notice of which modifications to the Surety being hereby waived[.]”  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-33(a).  The penal sum of the bond corresponds to the contract’s original value — i.e., $8 million.

As the GC begins mobilization, you’re informed that the county has obtained the funding necessary to build an additional wing to the building.  That work had been an alternate in the bidding process, but was rejected by the county when the bids came in higher than the architect’s estimate, leading the county to award a contract to the GC for base bid work only.  Now that the additional funding has been appropriated to the project, the $500,000 additional wing can be added to the GC’s scope of work by change order.

You discuss the scope change with the GC, who’s excited about the additional work.  A change order is executed, and requires the GC to provide notice of the change to the surety.  You’re told such notice has been given.  The County now has $8.5 million in protection under the performance bond, right?

Not so fast, Sparky.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Performance Bonds, Surety Law

OSHA Announces Heat Safety Tool App for iPhone and Android

Hot summer working conditions are right around the corner.  As part of its “Campaign to Prevent Heat Illness in Outdoor Workers,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has announced the availability of its “Heat Safety Tool” for iPhone and Android.

According to OSHA’s website, the App:

allows workers and supervisors to calculate the heat index for their worksite, and, based on the heat index, displays a risk level to outdoor workers.  Then, with a simple “click,” you can get reminders about the protective measures that should be taken at that risk level to protect workers from heat-related illness — reminders about drinking enough fluids, scheduling rest breaks, planning for and knowing what to do in an emergency, adjusting work operations, gradually building up the workload for new workers, training on heat illness signs and symptoms, and monitoring each other for signs and symptoms of heat-related illness.

Check out the App, and stay cool, everyone.

4 Comments

Filed under OSHA, Products & Services

4th Circuit, Flawed NEPA Review Process Cast Doubt On the Future of the Monroe Connector Bypass

Image courtesy FreeFoto.com

Remember the headline to my March 12, 2012 blog post about the Monroe Connector Bypass (or just the Monroe Bypass, for short)?

It suggested that the legal saga surrounding the proposed $725 million highway construction project was nearing “the end of the road.”

On second thought, not so much.

The road has taken an unexpectedly sharp turn, and there’s no telling how long the project may now be delayed.  Why? Because according to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (“4th Circuit”) in its May 3, 2012 decision in N.C. Wildlife Federation v. N.C. Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”) and the Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) failed to conduct a clear, transparent environmental review process that permitted meaningful public comment under applicable principles of federal environmental law.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Feature story, Federal case law, Federal law, policy & news, Local law, policy & news, Projects of Interest, State law, policy & news

BREAKING: 4th Circuit Blocks Monroe Bypass Project

I just heard this news, which I have yet to digest and absorb.  I’ll have a fuller update and analysis by early next week.  For now, please see the Charlotte Observer’s coverage here.

1 Comment

Filed under Federal case law, Local law, policy & news

Bid Protests: Look Before You Leap

A $15 million school construction project is being let by a local board of education, and you really want this contract.  Your team has been working relentlessly over the past week to accurately estimate the project and provide the school board with the most competitive price possible.  You’ve sharpened your pencil, and reduced your margin to virtually nothing in the hopes of landing this project.  Time to submit your proposal, fingers crossed…

…Well, the bid opening has now come and gone, and unfortunately, it looks like the work is going to be awarded to one of your competitors.  However, you believe there was an irregularity in the bidding process, and the more you think about it, the more you want to contest what you consider to be an unjust result.   Should you sue in an attempt to stop the contract from being awarded to your competitor?

The answer to that question depends substantially on the severity of the irregularity you’re concerned about.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Bid Protests

Federal Appeals Court Strictly Enforces 6-Month Statute of Limitations for Violations of OSHA’s Record-Keeping Requirements

In a decision likely to be celebrated by employers in the construction industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision on April 6, 2012 that strictly applies the six-month statute of limitations for citing an employer for record-keeping violations under the federal Occupational Safety & Health Act (the “OSH Act”).  In so holding, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the U.S. Department of Labor’s argument that an employer’s failure to record employee injuries and illnesses represented “continuing violations” of the OSH Act that, until corrected, prohibited the six-month statute of limitations from expiring.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Feature story, Federal case law, OSHA

Public-Private Partnerships for Financing Public Improvements — The Potential Good, Bad and Ugly

Image by digitalart via FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I commend to your reading the current issue of NC Construction News, which includes this feature article on public-private partnerships (“PPPs” or “P3s”).  As those who regularly follow this blog know, I’ve dedicated a fair amount of cyber-ink recently to the utilization of P3s in the construction of public facilities (particularly highways); after reading the linked article, my thinking on the subject has coalesced around this admittedly simplistic notion: P3s have enormous potential for good, for bad and for ugly, and it likely will be up to the General Assembly to determine which of those adjectives ultimately will apply to this unique project financing and delivery system.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Project Delivery Systems, State law, policy & news

NCDOT, CAGC and CAPA Encourage Your Participation In Highway Construction Wage Survey by April 11, 2012

Sen. James J. Davis (R-PA) and Rep. Robert L. Bacon (R-NY), co-sponsors of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”), in conjunction with Carolinas AGC (“CAGC”) and the Carolinas Asphalt Paving Association (“CAPA”), is conducting a Highway Construction Wage Survey to determine the validity of the U.S. Department of Labor’s prevailing wage determinations for North Carolina highway projects under the federal Davis-Bacon Act.

All highway contractors and subcontractors who performed construction, alteration and/or repair of roads, streets, highways, runways, taxiways, alleys, trails, paths, parking areas, bridges or other similar projects with a value greater than $2000 between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, whether financed by federal, state, municipal and/or private funds, are encouraged to participate in the survey.

Please note that the deadline for participation in the survey is Wednesday, April 11, 2012.

Additional information about the survey can be found here.  The survey can be filled out online here.  Click “Continue reading” below for more information about the Davis-Bacon Act and the importance of your participation in the current survey.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Davis-Bacon Act

You Just Signed A Construction Contract That’s In Excess of Your Limited General Contractor’s License; Can You Still Compel The Owner To Pay You?

Yes, but only up to a point.  Specifically, once the statutory limit of the license is reached, no additional contract balance above that limit may be recovered.

Our analysis begins with the N.C. General Statutes, specifically Chapter 87-10, which states, in pertinent part, that “the holder of a limited license shall be entitled to act as general contractor for any single project with a value of up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)[.]”  We also need to bear in mind that in 1983, the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the rule that “a contract illegally entered into by an unlicensed general construction contractor is unenforceable by the contractor.  It cannot be validated by the contractor’s subsequent procurement of a license.”  Brady v. Fulghum, 309 N.C. 580, 586, 308 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1983).

Based solely on the cited language of Chapter 87-10 and the general rule expressed in the Brady decision, it would be tempting to conclude that a contract entered into in excess of the statutory limit is illegal, void and therefore unenforceable in a court of law as of the moment the contract is signed.  Fortunately, however, that is not how subsequent appellate decisions have handled the situation.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Licensure, NC case law

U.S. House Punts On Long-Term Highway and Transit Investment

Despite passing the U.S. Senate by a bipartisan 74-22 vote earlier this month, legislation reauthorizing how our nation’s highway and transit programs are funded stalled this week in the U.S. House.  Rather than vote on the Senate’s package, known as MAP-21 (“Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century,” a good summary of which can be found here), the House temporarily extended the existing law, known as SAFETEA-LU, another 90 days yesterday, ostensibly to give itself more time to get its proverbial ducks in a row on a long-term bill.  The Senate quickly passed the temporary extension as well, and President Obama is expected to sign it into law immediately.  Assuming that occurs, it will be the ninth time SAFETEA-LU has been extended since its expiration on September 30, 2009.  ENR’s coverage of this week’s events can be found here.

The previous extension of SAFETEA-LU was due to expire at midnight tomorrow, which would have thrown prosecution of existing highway and transit work into utter disarray and cost scores of construction workers their jobs.  From that standpoint, a 90-day stopgap measure is certainly better than no action at all.

But this is no way to invest in our nation’s surface transportation needs.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Federal law, policy & news