Tag Archives: architect

NC State Construction projects– Privity, Multi-Prime Contracts, and the Ability to Be Sued by Parties You Don’t know (Law note)

Posted on by

At the recent seminar on construction law in North Carolina, I was asked whether parties could be sued by other parties on state construction projects when there is no contract between those parties.  The answer is yes. In the following series of blog posts, I will address three major cases which address this question in several different permutations.

For today’s post, I will discuss contractual privity, the multi-prime statute, and how the two apply on North Carolina state construction projects.  In later posts, I will discuss the application of that statute to different parties in the construction context.

Multi-prime contracts

In North Carolina, the state entity who is the owner of the construction project must bid the project pursuant to one of several designated ways.  One common method sometimes required of public bidding is the “mulit-prime” contract, in which the State has at least 4 separate contracts, for:

(1) Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

(2) Plumbing and gas fittings

(3) Electrical wiring and installations

(4) General construction relating to erection, alteration, or repair on public property

N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-128(a). 

The purpose of the multi-prime statute is two-fold:

  1.  It encourages lower bids by preventing pass-through cost mark-ups to the state
  2. It allows smaller specialty contractors to enter bidding directly with state without having to have a working relationship with a general contractor, thereby opening up state jobs to a wider array of potential contractors
Contractual Privity

 In general, contractual privity is required to sue another entity on a construction project—that is, you have to be in a contractual relationship with the party you are suing.  There are exceptions to this rule.  For example, you can be sued in negligence for property and personal damage by a party that you do not have a contract with.  (See my post discussing the architect’s liability for economic loss  resulting from breach of architect’s common-law duty of due care  ).  In addition, the state legislature has provided the ability for contractors to sue one another, or other entities involved in the construction project, without having to sue the owner or deal with the State Construction Office.

 NC statute on liability:

Each separate contractor shall be directly liable to the State of North Carolina, or to the county, municipality, or other public body and to the other separate contractors for the full performance of all duties and obligations due respectively under the terms of the separate contracts and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which shall specifically set forth the duties and obligations of each separate contractor. For the purpose of this section, “separate contractor” means any person, firm or corporation who shall enter into a contract with the State, or with any county, municipality, or other public entity to erect, construct, alter or repair any building or buildings, or parts of any building or buildings.

N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-128(b).   [Emphasis added].

This statute has been interpreted over the past decade to allow essentially any party to sue any other party directly on state construction projects.  In the next blog post, I will discuss the first of three major cases dealing with this issue.

Green Design | Legal risks to designing a Construction project for LEED certification (take 2)

Posted on by

As I noted in an earlier post about risks related to designing buildings for LEED certification, those involved in construction should proceed cautiously in designing to certain LEED standards.

A recent Insurance Journal article discusses insurance and liability risks for a designer or contractor if he guarantees a certain level of “green” performance in his construction contract.

“If you’re an architect, engineer, or contractor, and you’re guaranteeing to your client that the building will be Gold certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, you’re opening up a pretty big can of worms.”

You should never “guarantee” any performance to keep your risks minimized, your insurance in place, and your attorney happy. This article is another reminder to be especially cautious in green construction, and to not make promises that you may not be able to keep.

ConsensusDOCS- are they an improvement over AIA construction contracts?

Posted on by

Have you had occasion to use the (relatively) new ConsensusDOCS? Having just completed my manuscript for the North Carolina Construction Law seminar I’m speaking at in May, I’ve been spending a lot of time comparing the American Institute of Architect’s standard contract general conditions, the AIA A201 (2007) to the ConsensusDOCS 200 (2007) and the Engineering Joint Contracts Document Committee (EJCDC) standard general conditions of the contract, C-700 (2007).

I haven’t yet seen litigation over the ConsensusDOCS, so how courts will interpret its provisions remains to be seen. One major difference: the ConsensusDOCS do diminish some of the architect/design professional’s role on the project.

For example, in the change order process, instead of the architect being involved in the contract price and time adjustment (see AIA A201 Section 7.2.1), the ConsensusDOCS 200 calls for the owner and contractor to negotiate in good faith. No mention is made of the design professional’s role. (See 8.1.2).

If you’ve had occasion to work under the ConsensusDOCS, drop me a line and tell me the advantages and disadvantages over other form contracts.

Risks in designing for LEED certification

Posted on by

“Green” building is a hot topic for construction professionals, and the coveted LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the gold standard in demonstrating a commitment to environmentally friendly building.

According to the US Green Building Council which developed the LEED system, LEED is “an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts,”

Because LEED certification is relatively new, the legal implications of designing to obtain a specific LEED certification are still being hammered out. Potential risk in designing to a specific LEED standard is the failure of a building, once built, to meet the green criteria it was supposed to meet.

Case in point: Charlotte’s ImaginOn, a Children’s Theatre and Public Library facility. Designed as one of Charlotte’s first LEED buildings, ImaginOn is not meeting the green requirements it was designed to meet. This is due, in large part, to the popularity of the Center, which has led to an increase in operating hours and, of course, associated energy costs.

As noted in the Charlotte Observer, “the episode illustrates gaps between energy-saving potential and actual performance.”

Whether or not the increased hours should be considered as foreseeable, questions remain. Should such a situation be considered a breach of warranty? A changed condition? Or a little of each?

Until these matters get resolved in the Courts, it is wise practice to design with LEED goals but not certification or performance guarantees. All parties should recognize that circumstances may change which will prevent LEED certification or which will in other ways limit or eliminate any energy efficiencies which are anticipated.

Update:  For more risks in designing for LEED certification, check out my post: Legal risks in designing a Construction project for LEED certification (take 2)

 

Handling Threats of Contract Termination in the Construction Context

Posted on by

The threat of a contract termination, especially one “for cause” as opposed to “for convenience” , is something that strikes terror in the heart of many contractors.  The request by an owner to terminate for cause is something that must be handled carefully by the design professional/contract administrator.  A misstep by any party can cost untoward damages relating to contract termination in the construction context.