Tag Archives: construction

Tips for hiring and using your Construction Attorney

Posted on by

Often, people in the construction industry don’t bother to hire an attorney until they are in trouble. An owner isn’t paying them. A subcontractor has filed a lien on the property. Another contractor or homeowner is suing them. When your back is up against the wall, how do you find and use a construction attorney to your best advantage?

Check out the post on “How to be an Effective Construction Client” written by Jordan Furlong (@jordan_law21) on Christopher Hill’s Virginia-based construction law blog, Construction Law Musings.

In the article, Furlong discusses how to communicate expectations, bottom line deal breakers, and the like with your attorney both prior to hiring him/her and during the matter itself. Read it. Know it. Use it. Your attorney will thank you and so will your wallet.

 

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.

What is not in your construction contract can be just as important as what is in the contract

Posted on by

Ever wonder why lawyers like to write contracts that seem to go on, and on, and on? By nature, lawyers are doomsayers. We try to minimize risk, and sometimes that takes the form of a contract that “only a lawyer could love”.

We will cover important contract terms in future blog posts, but for now, did you know that what is not in your construction contract is just as important as what is in there? Many times the heart of a construction dispute stems from confusion or mistaken assumptions about what, exactly, was agreed upon.

In addition to having a very detailed “Scope of Services,” in which you specify exactly what you will be doing on a project, you should also develop a standard “Exclusions from Services” list, and that list should be a part of every contract.

Such an exclusion list should include:
— anything you were specifically asked not to perform
— anything the owner indicated was to be provided by others
— anything which involves specific contractor coordination (unless
you are providing this service)
— a listing of anything above and beyond normal conditions (for
example, “attendance at more than X meetings a month”)
— a general “catch all” statement that anything not specifically
specified in the Scope of Services is not covered

Of course, what specific things should be listed in your Exclusions list depends on what field of construction you are in. Design professionals need to focus on coordination issues, duties with respect to other design professionals on a large project, duties relating to oversight of contractor work, and related issues. Contractors should focus on their responsibility to work with and/or around other trades as well as related work that the owner does not intend to pay for which can result in scope creep.

While it might seem like wearing belts and suspenders at the same time to write out a Scope of Services and also include an Exclusion from Services list, the minimal extra effort in developing such an Exclusion list will pay you back in volumes should a dispute on the project ever arise.

Photo (c) Markus Spiske.

Failure to Coordinate in Design-Bid-Build case costly mistake

Posted on by

In a recent Business Court decision, an architecture firm was hit with a $2.3+ million judgment stemming from the design and construction of the kitchen exhaust and HVAC ductwork systems in the Charlotte Bobcats Arena.

The project was a “fast track” project, and the architecture firm claimed they were only contracted to provide diagrammatical drawings of the arena’s ductwork system. Subcontractors on the project sued for their cost to perform extra work to remedy alleged design deficiencies. Post-trial relief is currently being sought by the architectural firm (including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or a new trial on the damages issue).

Whether or not such post-trial motions are granted, however, the case raises the very real issue as to architectural responsibility versus contractor coordination responsibility, especially in fast-track projects. This case highlights the risks to architects in failing to make their responsibilities and contractual limitations explicitly clear to both owners and contractors. The case also highlights the need to explicitly review shop drawings for coordination issues that might be present.

The case is Hunt Construction Group Inc. et al. v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Ellerbe Becket Inc., case number 08-11915, in the Mecklenburg County Superior Court.