Tag Archives: engineer

LEED Credibility Challenged– UPDATE

Posted on by

 A group of local citizens, designers, and school board Building Committee members in Eagle Ridge, Wisconsin has issued a statement expressing their belief that LEED certifications are now suspect, following the failure of the USGBC to withdraw LEED Certification from the Northland Pines High School.  The group had appealed a decision to dismiss their claims that the LEED Gold certification for the school should be revoked, despite clear evidence which, they claim, shows that the building did not meet specific ASHRAE Standards, which are prerequisites to getting a LEED (green) building certification.

 They call into question the value of LEED certification if there is no verification of a purported building’s “green” credentials.

 You can download their statement of concern “USGBC and LEED Credibility Destroyed”.

 For more information relating to the case, Stephen Del Percio’s article “Wild Week for Green Real Estate Law” is an excellent summary.

 As previously mentioned on this blog, there is no clear idea of how the Courts would treat any LEED-specific claims.  Yet.  Stay tuned.

 UPDATE:  This afternoon, the USGBC has issued a statement standing by their findings:

LEED’s intent, and USGBC’s mission, is about helping people learn about and understand how to design, build and operate better buildings.  Buildings are complex systems of systems and any of the 100,000 of decisions associated with design, construction and operation can always be second-guessed. We are confident that our due diligence has been more than sufficient to put these issues to rest, and we are moving forward to focus our efforts where they do the most good — advancing the market uptake of green buildings and communities that is at the heart of our work

The full statement and commentary can be reviewed at Chris Cheatam’s article “Breaking: USGBC Stands by Its LEED Challenge Decision.”

Model Green Hotel—Putting the “Green” in Greensboro

Posted on by

This Sunday’s N&O featured a piece on the Proximity Hotel in Greensboro, NC.  Developer Dennis Quaintance is the man behind the hotel, which is the first hotel in the country to obtain a Platinum LEED rating.  According to its website,  the Hotel was built to use 40% less energy and 30% less water than a comparable hotel.  Innovations include  a unique elevator design which captures and reutilizes the system’s energy expenditure as well as 100 rooftop solar panels to generate hot water.

In stark contrast to the recent Town of Cary decision  to forego LEED certification for its new fire department building, the Proximity Hotel has spent approximately 3% extra to obtain its certification.  Developer Quaintance expects to make the money back, through a combination of energy efficiency and state and federal tax credits, as early as 2012.

If more developers calculate that they can make more money through the LEED program, expect to see more LEED certified buildings in the future.  For now, however, two years after the Proximity Hotel first opened, there is only one other platinum hotel in the U.S.

 

Statutory liability of Architects and Engineers to Contractors on State Construction projects (Law note)

Posted on by

As noted in my last post, the state multi-prime bidding statute provides for liability between separate contractors on state projects.

 A specific case from the Middle District Court of North Carolina (federal court), interpreting state law, further extended this liability to architects and engineers on state multi-prime projects.  RPR & Associates v. O’Brien/Atkins Associates, P.A., 24 F. Supp. 2d 515 (M.D.N.C. 1998).

 In that case, which involved the George Watts Hill Alumni Center at UNC-Chapel Hill, the court held that an architect and consulting engineer could be held accountable to contractors who rely on their work on North Carolina construction projects based on the same statute as that imposing liability on multi-prime contractors on one another.

 The issue in the RPR case was whether the statute applied to architects and engineers, since they are not “prime contractors” under the North Carolina multi-prime contracting statute.  The RPR court held that for purposes of the statute, design professionals were “separate prime contractors” such that they could be sued directly by prime contractors on state jobs.

 While this case is now over a decade old, it still surprises many design professionals who incorrectly assume that since they are not one of the enumerated prime contractors that they are not subject to statutory liability to the prime contractors.

In my next and final (for the time being) post on this subject, I will address the application of the statute on subcontractors.

 

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.