Tag Archives: terminology

Yes? Never? Maybe? Contract Clauses for Architects & Engineers (Tue Tip)

Posted on by

Make plans to attend a free webinar specifically for design professionals.  Entitled “The Bright Gray Line: “Yes”, “Never”, and “Maybe” Contract Clauses for Design Professionals (and how to find the difference)”.

The presentation will highlight challenging contract clauses and approachs to evaluating, negotiating, and managing those clauses.  Among the clauses which will be discussed are those relating to indemnity, the standard of care, code compliance, and document ownership.

The seminar is sponsored by Hall & Company and  presented by attorney David Ericksen, President of Severson & Werson.

When:                  Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Time:                   1:00 pm EDT

How:                    Click here to register

If you attend the webinar, let you know your thoughts afterwords.  I’m planning to attend as well, so we can compare notes.

Owner Drafted Indemnity Provisions: Kryptonite for designers?

Posted on by
be careful sign
Be careful with indemnity provisions (and small animals)!

—————————————————————

Are you being asked to sign contracts that are prepared by the Owner?  If so, do you have a policy in place to have each such contract, Master Agreement, or Statement of Work be reviewed by your attorney?  You should.  An ounce of caution is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

One of the most important contract terms to review in any contract is the indemnity provision.  I’ve discussed how indemnity provisions work in the past.  If you haven’t already read that post- do it now.  (Go ahead, I’ll wait).

Today, I want to address indemnity in the context of non-form contracts presented to you by an Owner for execution.  Generally these are presented with no expected negotiation on your part.  Remember, however, that everything can be negotiated.  A few small changes up front can save you lots of time and expense later if there is ever a lawsuit. 

Because these contracts are drafted by the Owner (or, rather, his horribly biased zealous attorney), they tend to be overreaching and broad.  Recent contracts I have reviewed ask the architect to indemnify the owner for the design team’s negligence, “regardless of whether or not other parties are also negligent.”  That phrase is very troubling, and should be stricken.  Otherwise, the Owner will have an argument that because the design team was negligent, they must indemnify the Owner for all negligent acts (other than the Owner’s own negligence), including those by other parties.   

A better, proportional indemnification provision should include indemnification “to the extent the claim is found to be caused by the negligence of the design team.”  (Even better, of course, would be a limitation of liability based on your design fees, but I recognize that it is often impossible to negotiate such a limitation with some blood-sucking sophisticated Owners.)

Do you have comments about indemnity provisions in contracts you have been asked to sign?  Drop me a note in the comment section, below.

Photo via Creative Commons License.

Which Contract Form Should You Use? (Guest Post)

Posted on by

Nathan Hinch

Today’s Guest Post is by Nathan B. Hinch, an associate at Mueller & Reece, LLC in Bloomington, Illinois, concentrating in the practice of commercial, construction, environmental, and real estate law.  He can be reached at [email protected] and on twitter @NathanHinch. 

 Form Construction Contracts – How Do They Compare, and How Should They Be Used?

By Nathan B. Hinch

Imagine that you are a contractor from the mythical State of Verbalville, a land where the handshake deal is the norm and no one ever puts anything in writing.  If a developer/owner awarded you a project and asked you to sign an AIA Document A101™ form construction contract, along with AIA Document A201™ General Conditions, would you sign it without reading the document?  Of course not.  Assuming that you were willing to consider bucking the verbal trend and sign the document at all, you would likely read it over very carefully first.  You might also consult an attorney, to help you understand the potential risks and liability issues involved with the contract, including the enforceability of the contract under Verbalville State law, and suggest changes to the document.

Now imagine that you are a contractor in my home State of Illinois and are awarded a project in North Carolina.  If the developer/owner handed you a ConsensusDOCS® 200 form construction contract with general conditions and asked you to sign, would you do so without reading it?  Would you consult a professional attorney before signing?  What if you were familiar with the form documents from your work in Illinois?  Would it matter if it was an EJCDC document instead?

I have worked with AIA, ConsensusDOCS®, and EJCDC form documents, and all three are excellent resources that in the right hands can help save time and money for construction projects.  But here’s the point – form contracts are wonderful tools that can help allocate risk and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the parties, but that is all they are.

In the construction field, the leading form contracts have been drafted by teams of experts representing the interest groups in general and supporting teams of attorneys.  If you have never used or read one of these before, I would encourage you to take an evening and read through at least one of those mentioned above.  Given the detail of the documents, it may be difficult to imagine that these forms, without editing, are likely not specific enough for your project.  But keep in mind as you read that these are national forms and are meant to be of use throughout the U.S.  By definition these forms do not generally consider 1) variations in State law requirements and 2) your particular project needs or goals.  For that reason, credible forms such as those produced by AIA, ConsensusDOCS®, or EJCDC will encourage users to consult an attorney before using the document for specific projects.  They are not meant for “plug and play” use.

For a great reference comparing these forms, see Gillies, Heckman, and Perlberg, THE Construction Contracts Book: How to Find Common Ground in Negotiating Design and Construction Clauses, American Bar Association 2008.  The EJCDC and ConsensusDOCS websites both provide a matrix from this book for PDF download.  The book may be purchased from the ABA website here.

[Ed note:  I second Nathan’s book recommendation, which is a great resource for anyone considering the pros and cons of each set of form documents.]

Nathan and I look forward to answering your comments, thoughts, and questions.  Drop us a note!

 

Pay when Paid & Pay if Paid

Posted on by

pay here signRecently I was contacted by several readers asking questions about “Pay when Paid” clauses.  For those of you who may have missed it, I’ve previously addressed Pay When Paid issues in my April 29, 2010 post, Pay When Paid Clauses in the NC Construction Contract.

For a good discussion of the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. 22C-2, the Court of Appeals opinion American Nat. Elec. Corp. v. Poythress Commercial Contractors, Inc., 167 N.C.App. 97, 101, 604 S.E.2d 315, 317 (2004) is worth a read.

In that case, the electrical subcontractor sued the general contractor for delay claims. The contract provided that the contractor would only be liable to the subcontractor for delays if the contractor was compensated for such delays by the owner.  While such a term is clearly a “pay if paid” provision, the Court called the provision a “pay when paid,” and declared it unenforceable in North Carolina.  It seems likely, therefore, that the Court would find that both provisions have the same legal effect in North Carolina– that is, both are unenforceable.

One time when a “pay if/when paid” provision could be enforceable?  Residential construction of fewer than 12 units.

As always, consult your local attorney because such clauses very widely in their enforceability from state to state.

Questions or comments on “pay when paid” or “pay if paid”?  Drop me a line in the comments section, below.

—————————-

Photo: “Pay Here” via Freefoto.com / Creative Commons License. 

 

State Construction Project Terms (Guest Post)

Posted on by

 

Eileen Youens

Eileen Youens

Today’s Guest Post is from Eileen R. Youens.  Eileen is  Assistant Professor of Public Law and Government at the UNC School of Government, where her areas of interest include public contract law, including purchase contracts, construction contracts, conflicts of interest, and disposal of property.

 The ABCs of IFBs, ITBs, RFPs, RFOs, and RFIs

What’s the difference between an IFB, and RFP, and an RFQ, and what are they anyway?  As I’ll explain in more detail in this post, what name you give a solicitation document—the document you use to solicit bids or proposals—is not as important as the process you use to award the contract.  And the North Carolina General Statutes usually dictate which process you’re required to use.

The Four Types of Documents

There are four main types of solicitation documents: (1) those used for bidding, where price is the primary factor; (2) those used to request proposals focusing on factors other than price; (3) those used to ask for someone’s qualifications; and (4) those used to gather information from potential bidders or proposers before starting the bid or proposal process.  I’ll explain below when local governments can use each of these four types of documents.

The First Type: Bids

Under North Carolina law, local governments are required to bid out purchases of “apparatus, supplies, materials, and equipment” (what I like to refer to as “stuff”) costing $30,000 or more, and contracts for construction or repair costing $30,000 or more.  (Local policies may require bidding on other types of contracts or for contracts costing less than $30,000.)  The bidding statutes, G.S. 143-129 (formal bidding) and G.S. 143-131 (informal bidding), require that these contracts be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.  This “award standard” is what distinguishes bidding from other contracting methods.  To solicit bids, public entities usually use Invitations to Bid (ITBs) or Invitations for Bids (IFBs). For informal bids or for purchases or construction costing less than $30,000, local governments may also use a request for quotes (“RFQ” – not to be confused with another RFQ: the request for qualifications, discussed below).

The Second Type: Requests for Proposals

North Carolina local governments have the option of using a request for proposal process for the purchase of information technology goods and services (G.S. 143-129.8).  This process allows local governments to establish their own evaluation criteria (i.e., evaluating vendors based on how well their product meets your entity’s needs, rather than focusing primarily on price), and award the contract to the vendor “that submits the best overall proposal.”  I say that this is an option because if you’re purchasing IT “stuff” that costs $30,000 or more, you can either (1) bid it out (formally or informally, depending on the cost), or (2) use the request for proposal process described in G.S. 143-129.8.  On the other hand, if you’re contracting for IT services, those services don’t fall under the bidding laws, so you can either (1) use the request for proposal process described in G.S. 143-129.8, or (2) use any process you want to use, or no process at all (simply selecting the firm you’d like to work with), unless your local policy requires a specific process for the procurement of services.  Note that if you’re using grant funding, you must comply with the terms of the grant.  (For example, if the grant requires you to bid out IT goods instead of using a request for proposal process, then you have to comply with the grant.)

The North Carolina statutes refer to requests for proposals in two other situations.  First, G.S. 143-64.17A requires that all public entities in North Carolina use a request for proposal process for the procurement of guaranteed energy savings contracts (GESCs).  The statutes governing GESCs (G.S. 143-64.17 through G.S. 143-64.17K [scroll down to “Part 2. Guaranteed Energy Savings Contracts for Governmental Units”]) set out a specific request-for-proposal process and specific evaluation criteria that must be used for these types of contracts.  Second, the statutes allow North Carolina local governments to use a request for proposal process for contracts for the construction, design, operation, and maintenance of solid waste management facilities and sludge management facilities.  The statute governing these contracts is G.S. 143-129.2.

As I mentioned above, local governments are not required to bid out services (aside from design services—discussed below).  In fact, the General Assembly has decided to let local governments choose how to procure services.  Many local governments use requests for proposals to procure services, as a way of seeking competition while considering factors in addition to price.  When a local government uses a request for proposals to procure services, the local government decides how the proposals are evaluated, what the timeline is, whether to advertise or not, and whether to open proposals in public or not.  In other words, when procuring services, it’s up to each government to decide what process will best balance its needs for (1) good quality services, (2) value, (3) transparency, (4) efficiency, and (5) fairness.  (As I mentioned above, if you’re using grant funding, you’ll need to comply with the terms of the grant; if the grant requires a competitive process for awarding contracts for services, you’ll have to comply with those terms.)

So the term “request for proposals” (RFP) covers a range of solicitation documents.

The Third Type: Qualifications-Based Selection

G.S. 143-64.31 (sometimes referred to as the “Mini-Brooks Act” because it’s based on a federal law called the “Brooks Act”) requires local governments to procure architectural, engineering, surveying, or construction-management-at-risk services—regardless of the contract amount—by focusing on qualifications rather than price.  (Note that local governments can exempt themselves from this process.) So when people solicit these services, they often use a “request for qualifications” (RFQ).

You can also use qualifications-based solicitation (or some variation thereof) for other types of services.  Again, since the general statutes don’t require the use of a specific process (or any process) for procuring services, the process you use is up to you (as long as you comply with your local policies or grant terms, if you’re using grant funding).

The Fourth Type: Information Requests

Another acronym you may see is RFI—a “request for information.”  RFIs are not used to procure goods or services directly, but instead are used to solicit information about purchases or projects you’re planning to procure in the future.  For example, if you know you’re going to have to buy some new police cars next year, and it’s been a while since you’ve bid out police cars, you could send out RFIs to several car dealers or manufacturers to find out what new features are available and what models might best meet your needs.

The Bottom Line

William Shakespeare really said it best:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.”

In other words, the substance of the document is more important than what it’s called.  If you’re soliciting firms to perform architectural services, your solicitation document must ask for qualifications instead of price, even if you call it an IFB.  And if you’re bidding out a $1.2 million construction project, you have to award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, even if you call your solicitation document a rose an RFP.

Eileen and I welcome your thoughts and questions in the comments section, below.

[hat tip to Mike Purdy, of Mike Purdy’s Public Contracting Blog, for bringing Eileen’s post to my attention]