January 28, 2013 · 9:40 AM
A Grim Tale
Image by Larisa Koshkina / PublicDomainPictures.net
Once upon a time, Best General Contracting, Inc. hired Able Electric Services Co. to perform the $900,000 electrical scope of work on a library project for a local college. Having not worked with Able before, and in light of the value of the electrical scope, Best required Able to obtain subcontractor performance & payment bonds for Best’s benefit, agreeing, of course, to reimburse Able for the $13,500 bond premium. As fate would have it, the library project proved one too many for the not-so-able Able, who ran into cash flow problems, sought bankruptcy protection and abandoned the project. Best immediately fired off a notice of default letter to Superior Surety and hoped that the claims handling process would match previous, positive experiences with subcontractor sureties and culminate in a quick, fairy-tale resolution to this project setback.
To Best’s surprise, it would not. Continue reading →
Filed under Claims Handling, Performance Bonds, Surety Law
Tagged as bond obligee, construction bonding, construction bonding nc, construction bonds NC, construction contract default, construction contract termination, construction default, construction surety, contract bond surety, contract performance risk management, contract surety bond, handling surety claims, irrevocable letter of credit, managing surety claims, nc surety, nc surety law, nc surety lawyer, north carolina surety, North Carolina surety law, North Carolina surety lawyer, subcontractor default insurance, surety, surety claims process, surety obligee, surety principal
May 17, 2012 · 11:02 AM
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 →
Filed under Performance Bonds, Surety Law
Tagged as bond increase rider, bond obligee, bonds and statute of frauds, change orders, N.C. construction lawyer, NC construction lawyer, nc surety lawyer, penal sum, penal sum automatically increase with change orders, performance bond, Raleigh construction lawyer, scope of surety liability, statute of frauds, surey law nc