Category Archives: Contract Drafting

DELAY, DELAY AND MORE DELAY! EXCUSABLE OR NON-EXCUSABLE?

Posted on by


The word “delay” is an all too familiar word utilized during construction because it is not remotely uncommon for a construction project to experience delays.  While contractors never want a delay to actually happen because time is money, delays unfortunately do happen as construction schedules are not written in stone.

 

There are two types of delay: (1) non-excusable delay (or inexcusable delay) and (2) excusable delay.

 

Non-excusable delay is the type of delay that contractors never want to hear.  This is the delay solely caused by them and may trigger the owner’s assessment of liquidated damages.  Not only this, but this type of delay will not entitle the contractor to additional time or compensation.  Why? Because again, the delay was caused by the contractor, hence the reason why it is the type of delay a contractor never wants to hear!

 

Excusable delay is not the fault of the contractor and is the type delay that will entitle the contractor to additional time, additional compensation, or both.  Excusable delay is further broken down into (a) compensable, excusable delay (entitling the contractor to additional compensation and time) and (b) non-compensable, excusable delay (entitling the contractor to additional time, but not additional compensation).

 

Excusable, compensable delay is a delay solely caused by the owner or its consultants and is not caused by the contractor.  This is the good type of delay in the sense that it should entitle the contractor to additional time to substantially complete the project and, based upon the contract, additional compensation in the form of extended general conditions.  This type of delay could be the result of owner-directed changes, differing site conditions, design revisions, suspension of performance, i.e., actions that are outside of the contractor’s control but within the owner and its agents’ control.

 

Excusable, non-compensable delay, on the other hand, is typically your force majeure delay including unusually severe weather conditions, fire, or labor strikes—these are the types of delay that are beyond any parties’ control in the construction process, which is why the contractor would be entitled to additional time, but not additional money.

 

The contractor claiming excusable delay has the burden of proving the delay.  See R.P. Wallace, Inc. v. U.S., 63 Fed.Cl. 402, 409 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (“The contractor must prove that the excusable event proximately caused a delay to the overall completion of the contract, i.e., that the delay affected activities on the critical path.”).  For this reason, it is important that the contractor well-document the cause of the delay including how the delay impacted its critical path, and provide timely notice under the contract regarding the event causing the delay.

 

Now, construction contracts contain may contain a “no damage for delay” clause that is designed to prevent the contractor from being entitled to extended general conditions for excusable, compensable delay.  Basically, if there is an excusable delay, the contractor’s sole and exclusive remedy is an extension of time and not extended general conditions.  The “no damage for delay” provision is enforceable in many jurisdictions.  While there are certain recognized exceptions to the application of an enforceable “no damage for delay” provision (e.g., fraud, active interference), a contractor agreeing to such a provision certainly cannot operate on the premise that it will argue around it in the event of an excusable, compensable delay.  Rather, the contractor needs to operate on the premise that it is assuming a certain risk that a delay could be caused by the owner or the owner’s agents and the contractor’s sole remedy for the delay is more time to substantially complete the project.

 

The objective for any contractor is to understand what the legal implications and consequences are for delays on a construction project, whether an excusable delay or non-excusable delay.  Some tidbits for contractors to absolutely consider on the front-end and prior to the execution of the contract include:

 

  • Does the contract define excusable delay that would entitle the contractor to additional time and/or money?  For instance, in government contracting, the prime contract may incorporate Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.249.10 and 52.249.14 regarding excusable delay, as set forth below.
  • Is there a “no-damage-for-delay” provision in the contract?
  • What are the notice provisions to ensure the contractor is timely providing notice for the cause of the delaying event? Notice should always be given even if the full impact of the delay is unknown. Many contracts contain onerous language that if notice is not given with “x” number of days after the delaying event, the contractor waives any and all claims for delay.  Watch out for this!
  • Does the contractor have appropriate language in its subcontracts that will enable it to flow-down damages associated with non-excusable delay (the owner’s assessment of liquidated damages and the contractor’s own extended general conditions)?
  • Does the contractor have an experienced scheduling consultant or scheduler that can capture the delaying event to show the event impacted the critical path?

 

 

52.249-10    Default (Fixed–Price Construction) (APR 1984)

(a) If the Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the work or any separable part, with the diligence that will insure its completion within the time specified in this contract including any extension, or fails to complete the work within this time, the Government may, by written notice to the Contractor, terminate the right to proceed with the work (or the separable part of the work) that has been delayed. In this event, the Government may take over the work and complete it by contract or otherwise, and may take possession of and use any materials, appliances, and plant on the work site necessary for completing the work. The Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for any damage to the Government resulting from the Contractor’s refusal or failure to complete the work within the specified time, whether or not the Contractor’s right to proceed with the work is terminated. This liability includes any increased costs incurred by the Government in completing the work.

(b) The Contractor’s right to proceed shall not be terminated nor the Contractor charged with damages under this clause, if–

(1) The delay in completing the work arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. Examples of such causes include (i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers; and

(2) The Contractor, within 10 days from the beginning of any delay (unless extended by the Contracting Officer), notifies the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay. If, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, the findings of fact warrant such action, the time for completing the work shall be extended. The findings of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive on the parties, but subject to appeal under the Disputes clause.

(c) If, after termination of the Contractor’s right to proceed, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, or that the delay was excusable, the rights and obligations of the parties will be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Government.

(d) The rights and remedies of the Government in this clause are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.

See also F.A.R. 52.249-14 (regarding bolded language).

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

CONVERTING THE DREADFUL TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT INTO A TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE

Posted on by


Contractors, whether prime contractors or subcontractors, terminated for default (also known as termination for cause) want to convert that termination for default into a termination for convenience.   The termination for default ultimately means the contractor materially breached the contract and would be liable for any cost overrun associated with completing their contractual scope of work.  On the other hand, if the termination for default is converted into a termination for convenience, the contractor would be entitled to get paid for the work performed through the termination along with reasonable profit on the work performed and, depending on the contract, reasonable anticipatory profit on the work NOT performed.  A huge difference and the fundamental reason contractors terminated for default should aim to convert that termination for default into a termination for convenience!

 

Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, contractors terminated for convenience may recover reasonable profit on work performed, but NOT profit for work not performed.  (See F.A.R. s. 52.249-2 and 49.202)

 

But, under the standard AIA A201 General Conditions, if an owner terminates a general contractor for convenience, “the Contractor shall be entitled to receive payment for Work executed, and costs incurred by reason of such termination, along with reasonable overhead and profit on the Work not executed.”  (See AIA A201, para. 14.4.3)

 

Yet, under the ConsensusDocs 200, “If the Owner terminates this Agreement for Convenience, the Constructor shall be paid: (a) for the Work performed to date including Overhead and profit; and (b) for all demobilization costs and costs incurred as a result of the termination but not including Overhead or profit on Work not performed.” (See Consensus Docs, 200, para. 11.4.2)

 

As reflected above, a contractual provision will dictate the costs recoverable when there is a termination for convenience.  The AIA A201 General Conditions is favorable to a contractor by providing for reasonable overhead and profit on the work not executed.  Whether reasonable  profit on work not performed is recoverable, the objective should always be converting that termination for default into one for convenience so that at least the contractor can recover for work performed and profit on the work performed along with other associated termination costs that the contract may provide.

 

When a party is terminated for default, the key issues that will arise will typically be: (a) whether the termination for default was proper, i.e., whether the terminating party procedurally complied with the termination for default provision in the contract, (b) whether the cause or default was material and rose to the level of constituting a default termination, and (c) converting the termination for default into a termination for convenience and the recoverable costs pursuant to the termination for convenience provision in the contract.  Again, a termination for default will likely mean that the terminated party owes the terminating party money associated with the overrun for completing their scope of work.  A termination for convenience, on the other hand, will likely mean that the terminated party is owed money for work it performed irrespective of any overrun experienced by the terminating party.

 

 


A recent ruling in U.S.A. f/u/b/o Ragghianti Foundations III, LLC v. Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc., 2014 WL 4791999 (M.D.Fla. 2014), illustrates a dispute between a prime contractor and a subcontractor on a federal project after the prime contractor default terminated the subcontractor.   The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to construct the foundation, slab on grade, and site concrete.  As the subcontractor was pouring the slab on grade concrete, it was determined that there were deficiencies in the concrete.  The prime contractor sent the subcontractor notice under the subcontract regarding the deficiencies and that the subcontractor needed to provide an action plan prior to future concrete placement. Although the subcontractor responded with a plan including when it was going to demolish the defective portion of the slab, it failed to live up to its own recovery schedule.  Accordingly, the prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default and incurred costs well in excess of the subcontractor’s original subcontract amount to complete the subcontractor’s scope of work.  The subcontractor filed suit against the prime contractor and its Miller Act surety and the prime contractor counter-claimed against the subcontractor.

 

 

There were numerous interesting issues raised in this case.  This article will only touch upon a couple of the legal issues. The first issue was whether the prime contractor properly terminated the subcontractor for default pursuant to the subcontract; if not, the termination should be deemed a termination for convenience.  The Court found that the termination was procedurally proper, but declined to determine whether the termination was wrongful, perhaps because the Court determined that once the termination for default was properly implemented pursuant to the subcontract there was no reason to delve into any further analysis.  In other words, once the prime contractor procedurally, properly terminated the subcontractor for default pursuant to the subcontract, it appeared irrelevant whether the cause forming the basis of the default was material.   This implication is certainly beneficial for the prime contractor and it is uncertain why the Court did not entertain the argument as to whether the procedurally proper termination was wrongful.   This determination would seem important because if the termination was wrongful, the terminating contractor would be responsible for its own cost overrun in addition to the costs incurred by the terminated subcontractor.  Although, in this case, by the Court finding that the termination for default was procedurally proper, the Court seemed to recognize that there was cause supporting the implementation of the termination for default; otherwise, the termination for default would not have been procedurally proper.

 

The next issue discussed in this case pertained to recoverable delay-type damages under the Miller Act.  The Court expressed:

 

A Miller Act plaintiff is entitled to recover under the bond the out-of-pocket labor and expenses attributable to delays. 

***

[A] damage claim against a surety that does not flow directly and immediately from actual performance [of its agreement] is barred by the Miller Act….A subcontractor cannot recover on a Miller Act payment bond for the cost of labor and materials provided after the termination of work under a government construction project, and cannot recover profits on out-of-pocket expenditures attributable to delay.

Ragghianti Foundations, supra, at *18, 19 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

What does this mean?  This means that a subcontractor is not entitled to recover against a Miller Act surety:  (a) anticipated lost profits on work not performed, (b) delay-related costs that do not flow directly and immediately from actual performance under the subcontract, (c) profit on delay-related costs, and (d) costs incurred after the termination of the work.  These are all categories of damages that are applicable to a terminated subcontractor that it will NOT be able to recover against a Miller Act surety.  This is important because if a subcontractor is looking to capitalize on its damages for converting a termination for default into one of convenience, it may want to sue the terminating contractor so that it is not leaving any damages on the table by only suing the Miller Act surety.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AND YOUR “ORDER OF PRECEDENCE” CLAUSE

Posted on by


During the negotiation of construction contracts there is often consideration as to the priority of the Contract Documents.  In other words, in the event of a conflict with the Contract Documents, what is the priority that you want to govern the conflict?  To address this, parties may include an order of precedence clause that clarifies how conflicts with the Contract Documents are to be interpreted by prioritizing the Contract Documents.

 

The AIA Document A201 (General Conditions) deems the Contract Documents as complementary (see § 1.2.1 -“The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all….”) without including an order of priority to determine which Contract Document truly governs a conflict.  The AIA does not really favor establishing an order of precedence;  but, if supplementary conditions are added to modify the A201 General Conditions, the AIA does suggest model language:

 

§ 1.2.1.1 In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the Contract Documents, interpretations will be based on the following priorities:

1. Modifications.

2. The Agreement.

3. Addenda, with those of later date having precedence over those of earlier date.

4. The Supplementary Conditions.

5. The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.

6. Division 1 of the Specifications.

7. Drawings and Divisions 2–49 of the Specifications.

8. Other documents specifically enumerated in the Agreement as part of the Contract Documents.

 

 

The EJCDC C-700 (General Conditions) contains virtually identical language as the AIA A201 deeming the Contract Documents as complementary: (see § 3.01.A- “The Contract Documents are complementary; what is required by one is as binding if required by all.”)

 

The ConsensusDocs 200 (Agreement and General Conditions) takes a much more proactive approach regarding conflicts by containing the following clauses:

 

14.2.2 In case of conflicts between the drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern….

 

 14.2.5 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In case of any inconsistency, conflict, or ambiguity among the Contract Documents, the documents shall govern in the following order: (a) Change Orders and written amendments to this Agreement; (b) this Agreement; (c) subject to subsection 14.2.2 the drawings (large scale governing over small scale), specifications and addenda issued prior to the execution of this Agreement or signed by both Parties; (d) information furnished by the Owner pursuant to subsection 3.13.4 or designated as a Contract Document in section 14.1; (e) other documents listed in this Agreement. Among categories of documents having the same order of precedence, the term or provision that includes the latest date shall control. Information identified in one Contract Document and not identified in another shall not be considered a conflict or inconsistency.

 

 

Even Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.236-21 incorporated into government prime construction contracts contains language that, “In the case of difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern.”

 

There are certainly pluses and minuses to creating an order of precedence provision.  A minus is that implementing a provision takes away from the complementary nature of the Contract Documents.  Thus, whatever hierarchy you determine and include is a hierarchy you need to understand because you will be living by it. There is also the concern that the provision is incorporated to perhaps serve as a substitute for properly executed, coordinated, and detailed plans and specifications or is incorporated to reduce the contractor’s risk to check the Contract Documents to address any inconsistencies on the front end.   On the other hand, as a plus, these clauses provide necessary guidance in the event there is a claim due to a conflict with the Contract Documents. Most of the time, I tend to favor an order of precedence provision to prioritize direct conflicts in the Contract Documents.  Depending on whether you are the owner, the contractor, or even a subcontractor, forethought should be given to the order of precedence of the Contract Documents since there is a good chance this order will be relied on once construction commences.

 

 


To illustrate the application of an order of precedence provision, in Hensel Phelps Const. Co. v. U.S., 886 F.2d 1296 (Fed.Cir. 1989), a prime contractor sought an equitable adjustment of its contract. The contractor relied on an order of precedence provision that required the specifications to govern over any conflict between the drawings and specifications (see routinely incorporated F.A.R. 52.236-21).  In this case, the specifications called for a minimum of 18” of fill under concrete floor slabs; however, the drawings called for 36” inches of fill.  The contractor priced the job with the 18” of fill.  During construction, the contracting officer directed the contractor to install 36” of fill which triggered the equitable adjustment.   The government, however, argued that the contractor knew of this discrepancy all along.  The Federal Circuit Court nevertheless held that the contractor should be entitled to an equitable adjustment since the specifications had priority over this direct conflict:

 

“Reliance was properly placed on the order of precedence clause to resolve a discrepancy between the specifications and the drawings and this resolution was reflected in the bid. When the government insisted on 36 inches of fill, rather than the 18 inches called for in the specifications, the contractor was required to perform more work than the contract required and more than its bid price contemplated. Consequently, on the record here neither Hensel Phelps [prime contractor] nor Watts [subcontractor] can be said to have profited or otherwise benefited by reliance on the order of precedence clause.” 

Hensel Phelps, 886 F.2d at 1299.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

COMPELLING REASONS NOT TO ENFORCE SUBCONTRACT VENUE PROVISIONS IN MULTI-PARTY CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CASES

Posted on by


Subcontracts oftentimes contain venue provisions as to the exclusive venue for lawsuits.  These venue provisions or forum selection clauses are consistent with the general contractor’s preferred venue; the venue, however, may be in a location unrelated to the project site. Sometimes the general contractor is sued by an owner (or association) for construction defects in a venue different than the venue included in the subcontracts.  The general contractor, as it should, will third-party into the lawsuit those subcontractors that are implicated by the owner’s complaint for breach of contract, indemnification, etc.

 

Certain subcontractors will move to transfer venue based on the venue provision in their subcontract.  Despite the venue provision, transferring venue is really in no one’s best interest since it is more efficient and economical to have multi-party construction defect cases tried and adjudicated in the same action versus many separate actions.  The recent case of Love’s Window & Door Installation, Inc. v. Acousti Engineering, Etc., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1963a (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) supports this position.  In this multi-party construction defect case, a sub-subcontractor that was sued by the subcontractor that hired it moved to transfer venue.  The trial court denied the motion and the sub-subcontractor appealed.  The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that there were compelling reasons not to enforce the venue provision (e.g., to prevent multiple lawsuits, minimize judicial labor, avoid inconsistent results, and reduce expenses).

 

Yes, venue provisions are important and routinely enforceable.  But, there are times where it is in the interests of justice and the parties NOT to enforce a venue provision, such as a multi-party construction defect case.

 

Notwithstanding, I always like to include a joinder provision in a construction contract that allows the hiring party (e.g., general contractor) to sue the hired party (e.g., subcontractor) in any forum and venue that the hiring party is sued.  For example, in a subcontract, I would want a provision that allows the general contractor to sue (or third-party / join) the subcontractor in any venue and forum the general contractor is sued by any third-party, association, or owner.  Such a provision ensures that even if the hired party (subcontractor) wants to rely on the venue provision, there is a joinder provision in the subcontract that negates the application of the venue provision in this context.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

HMM–WAIVER OF SUBROGATION–SHOULD IT STAY OR SHOULD IT GO?!?

Posted on by


Parties involved in construction are familiar with the phrase “waiver of subrogation” because there is commonly, and virtually always, a waiver of subrogation provision in the construction contract.  For instance, the AIA Document A201 (General Conditions) contains a waiver of subrogation provision for damages or loss covered by builder’s risk property insurance.  A waiver of subrogation provision prevents an insurance company from paying a claim and then stepping in the shoes of the insured (through subrogation) to sue a waived third party responsible for the claim.  To ensure the waiver of subrogation provision does not conflict with any other rights in the contract, the A201’s waiver of subrogation provision provides: “A waiver of subrogation shall be effective as to a person or entity even though that person or entity would otherwise have a duty of indemnification, contractual or otherwise, did not pay the insurance premium directly or indirectly, and whether or not the person or entity had an insurable interest in the property damaged.”

 

For example, let’s assume a fire during construction caused substantial damage to an owner’s property.  The owner submitted a builder’s risk claim and it was determined that the damage caused by the fire (peril) was covered.  Let’s assume the fire was attributed to the negligence of the contractor and its electrical subcontractor.  With waiver of subrogation language, the carrier cannot pay the claim to the owner and then subrogate to the interests of the owner to pursue claims directly against the contractor and/or electrical subcontractor to recoup the proceeds it paid to the owner.  This waiver would apply even though the owner’s contract with its contractor required the contractor to indemnify the owner for damage caused by the contractor or the contractor’s subcontractor’s negligence.  Without the waiver of subrogation language, the carrier would not be deprived of this subrogation right.

 

 


In addition to the waiver of subrogation relating to builder’s risk property insurance, parties are requesting waivers of subrogation endorsements for CGL policies and other liability policies.  With CGL policies, the waiver of subrogation endorsement is referred to as the “Waiver of Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us” endorsement.  Sometimes parties want a blanket waiver or at least they want to know they are specifically identified in the endorsement to ensure the CGL carrier waives a subrogation claim against it if the carrier pays out insurance proceeds.   This endorsement is important because without it a party could be breaching its insurance policy and voiding applicable coverage by contractually agreeing to waive subrogation that is in conflict with the policy’s subrogation language.  If a carrier is willing to issue this endorsement (and there are times it may not), it will usually come at a cost through a higher premium, etc., since the waiver of subrogation impacts an insurer’s risk assessment.

 

I like contractual waiver of subrogation language relating to builder’s risk property insurance claims.  As long as the insurance broker and carrier are aware of the contractual waiver so that there is not any issue that the waiver impacts policy language / coverage (and, the broker and carrier should inquire since it’s become boilerplate language in construction contracts), the waiver of subrogation allows a covered claim to be paid without an otherwise waived party worried about whether the carrier is going to try to later recoup losses against it.

 

From an owner or contractor’s perspective, I also usually like the idea of the party being hired to provide the waiver of subrogation endorsement / waiver of transfer of rights endorsement in its CGL policy irrespective of the requirement to identify the hiring (or paying) party as an additional insured.  The primary reason is that in the event there is any issue whatsoever with the additional insured status under the hired party’s policy such that it does not apply  to the hiring party (e.g., additional insured status of a general contractor under its hired subcontractor’s policy), with the waiver of subrogation, if the hired party’s policy pays it has at least waived its right to recoup that money against the hiring party through subrogation.

I know there are some parties that do not like waiver of subrogation language, especially with CGL policies, due to underwriting issues that it poses and/or potential increased premium costs associated with the endorsement.  Sure, this is true.  But, a waiver of subrogation does enable a dispute to be streamlined by allocating risk to a party that is in a position to control the risk and has insurance to cover that risk and by reducing continued litigation associated with a claim.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

DON’T INCLUDE AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IN YOUR CONTRACT IF YOU DON’T WANT TO ARBITRATE!

Posted on by


Arbitration as the method of dispute resolution is based on your contract.  If you don’t want to arbitrate, do not (I repeat, do not) include an arbitration provision.  If you ultimately have no choice and need to agree to a contract that includes an arbitration provision, understand that this provision will be enforced unless the parties agree to waive it.

 

The recent case of Bari Builders, Inc. v. Hovstone Properties Florida, LLC, et al., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1648a (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), exemplifies what happens if you include an arbitration provision.  In this case, a condominium association sued the developer for construction defects.  The developer (that may have also served as the general contractor / home builder) third-partied in its subcontractors.  However, there was a binding arbitration provision in the subcontract.  Subcontractors, therefore, moved to compel arbitration of the developer’s claims against them.  The developer, naturally, did not want to arbitrate its third-party claims against subcontractors when it was being sued by the condominium association.  It makes more sense to wrap up the disputes in one matter.  The developer tried to argue around arbitration by arguing that the arbitration provision in its contract was ambiguous because another place in the contract said, “In all actions the parties waive the right to jury and agree to determination of all facts by the court.”   The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with the developer’s ambiguity argument and reconciled this language:

 

“[T]he jury waiver language in the subcontract does not render the arbitration provision ambiguous, as the two provisions can be reconciled in favor of arbitration.  Read together, the provisions provide that the parties agree to submit any ‘controversy or claim’ to arbitration and, thereafter, any award may be reduced to judgment in court without the right to a jury trial.  Additionally, in the event that the parties choose to waive their right to arbitration, the clause provides that any ‘action’ in court will be in the form of a bench trial.”

Bari Builders, supra.

 

As shown in this case, courts will favor arbitration when there is an arbitration provision in the contract.  If parties prefer arbitration, and specifically if arbitration is preferred by a general contractor, the contract should include language that in the event the general contractor is sued by the developer or association (or any third-party), the general contractor, at its sole discretion, can waive arbitration and the parties are bound to the forum governing the dispute against the general contractor.  In other words, the general contractor has the authority to join in the subcontractor to any dispute it is involved in irrespective of the arbitration provision.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISIONS IN SUBCONTRACTS (PARTICULARLY SUBCONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS)

Posted on by


The assessment of liquidated damages should be a consideration to contractors on all projects, specifically public (federal and state) projects where the prime contract routinely contains a liquidated damages provision for delays to the completion of the project.  Many times, the subcontract will contain a provision that will allow the prime contractor to pass-through liquidated damages assessed by the government (owner) to the responsible subcontractor.  Well, what if the government did not assess liquidated damages?  Can the prime contractor still assess liquidated damages against a responsible subcontractor in accordance with the subcontract?  The opinion in U.S. f/u/b/o James B. Donahey, Inc. v. Dick Corp., 2010 WL 4666747 (N.D.Fla. 2010), would allow a prime contractor to assess liquidated damages against a subcontractor even if the government did not assess liquidated damages against the prime contractor.

In this case, a prime contractor entered into a contract to design and build four buildings at the Pensacola Navy Station and provided a Miller Act payment bond.  The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform the plumbing and mechanical work.   Due to delays the general contractor believed were caused by the subcontractor, it withheld substantial payment from the subcontractor.  The prime contractor contended that the subcontractor caused 63 days of delay to the occupancy of the Visitors Quarters building and 32 days of delay to the Aviation Rescue Swimmers School building.  The subcontract provided that in the event of delays, liquidated damages would be assessed in the amount of $5,400 per day for delay to the Aviation Rescue Swimmers School and $24,898 per day for delay to the Visitors Quarters.

The subcontractor filed a Miller Act lawsuit against the prime contractor and its surety (amongst other causes of actions).  The prime contractor filed a counterclaim based on the liquidated damages that it assessed against the subcontractor, an amount in excess of what it was withholding.  The subcontractor moved for summary judgment arguing that the liquidated damages provision was unenforceable (and the prime contractor could not assess liquidated damages) because the provision was a pass-through provision; thus, because the government did not assess liquidated damages against the prime contractor, the prime contractor could not assess liquidated damages against the subcontractor.  The subcontractor further argued that the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable because it is being treated as a penalty because the subcontractor is not being provided the benefit of extensions of time granted by the government to the prime contractor that would negate delays.   The prime contractor countered that nothing in the subcontract stated that liquidated damages could only operate as a pass-through claim, that being that the government had to assess liquidated damages before the prime contractor could assess liquidated damages against the subcontractor.  The prime contractor further countered that the extensions of time granted by the government were irrelevant since they did not pertain to the subcontractor’s scope of work or affect the subcontractor’s milestone completion dates.

The Northern District of Florida agreed with the prime contractor and denied the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment because it found the liquidated damages provision enforceable.  The Northern District explained as it pertained to the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim:

 

“In considering a Miller Act claim, the trier of fact must thus look to the subcontract to determine the amount due. ‘[I]f the subcontract provides for a condition precedent to payment, or a part thereof, which is not fulfilled, the subcontractor cannot recover labor and material expenditures against the surety on the payment bond.’ In other words, if there has been a default by the subcontractor, the general contractor may assert recoupment or setoff as a defense. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timeliness of Donaghey’s [subcontractor] performance and, therefore, Donaghey’s entitlement to the amounts withheld by Dick [prime contractor], summary judgment is inappropriate as to Donaghey’s Miller Act claim.”

Dick Corporation, 2010 WL at *3 quoting U.S. f/u/b/o Harrington v. Trione, 97 F.Supp. 522, 527 (D.C.Colo. 1951).

Stated differently, the Miller Act payment bond surety was entitled to rely on the prime contractor’s assessment of liquidated damages as a set-off  / recoupment defense  to the subcontractor’s Miller Act claim.  Also, if there were other conditions precedent that the subcontractor failed to comply with, the Miller Act surety would be entitled to many of these defenses as well.

 The Northern District further maintained that a liquidated damages provision under Florida law will be enforceable if the provision does not operate as a penalty, meaning damages upon a breach must not be readily ascertainable at the time of the contract and must not be grossly disproportionate to any damages reasonably expected to follow from the breach.  Dick Corporation, 2010 WL at *4 quoting Mineo v. Lakeside Village of Davie, LLC, 983 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The Court held that the liquidated damages provision did not operate as a penalty and it was not intended to operate only as a pass-through mechanism.  See, e.g., U.S. f/u/b/o Sunbeam Equip. Corp.  v. Commercial Constr. Corp., 741 F.2d 326, 328 (11th Cir. 1984) (“The fact that the Navy did not assess liquidated damages as such against Commercial [prime contractor], would not foreclose recovery of delay damages, if Commercial could demonstrate that damages arising out of the subcontract with Sunbeam [subcontractor] were not otherwise compensated.”) 

There are three important take-aways from this opinion:

  • Liquidated damages provisions in subcontracts can operate as more than a pass-through provision for liquidated damages assessed by the government (owner).  These provisions can operate as a mechanism to assess liquidated damages against the subcontractor even if the government / owner has not assessed liquidated damages against the prime contractor.  Prime contractors and subcontractors need to keep this in mind when drafting and negotiating liquidated damages provisions.  If the intent is for the provision to only operate as a pass-through provision, this intent should be clearly stated in the subcontract.  If the intent is for it to operate more than as a pass-through provision, then this risk needs to be considered by the subcontractor.
  • Liquidated damages are typically going to be deemed enforceable if they are not intended to operate as a penalty.
  • A Miller Act payment bond surety will be entitled to rely on set-off / recoupment affirmative defenses contained within the subcontract including, without limitation, the prime contractor’s assessment of liquidated damages or other delay damages against the subcontractor pursuant to the subcontract.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

HAS A MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OCCURRED? CONSULT COUNSEL TO BEST DETERMINE RIGHTS!

Posted on by


When a dispute arises, whether it is a payment dispute or otherwise, parties sometimes point the finger to the other party to argue that the other party breached the contract. What exactly does this mean? For a breach of contract to occur, the breach (or nonperformance) must be a MATERIAL BREACH.  See Abbot Labs, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital, 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).  A material breach is one that goes to the essence of the contract versus a minor aspect of the contract.  See Covelli Family, L.P. v. ABG5, L.L.C., 977 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).  The Covelli Family Court explained:

 

“To constitute a vital or material breach, a party’s nonperformance must go to the essence of the contract.  A party’s failure to perform some minor part of his contractual duty cannot be classified as a material or vital breach.”  

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

 

Stated similarly:

 

“To constitute a vital or material breach a defendant’s nonperformance must be such as to go to the essence of the contract; it must be the type of breach that would discharge the injured party from further contractual duty on his part. Corbin, supra, s 1104. A defendant’s failure to perform some minor part of his contractual duty cannot be classified as a material or vital breach. Corbin states, at s 1104, pp. 562-565:

 

‘. . . The injured party, however, can not maintain an action for restitution of what he has given the defendant unless the defendant’s non-performance is so material that it is held to go the ‘essence’; it must be such a breach as would discharge the injured party from any further contractual duty on his own part. Such a vital breach by the defendant operates, with respect to the right of restitution, in the same way that a repudiation of the contractual obligation would operate. A minor breach by one party does not discharge the contractual duty of the other party; and the latter being still bound to perform as agreed can not be entitled to the restitution of payments already made by him or to the value of other part performances rendered.‘”

Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Intern, Inc., 267 So.2d 853, 857 (Fla. 1972) citing and quoting Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 5.

 

In numerous circumstances, nonpayment can constitute a material breach.  See Scott v. Rolling Hills Place Inc., 688 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (finding that developer first breached contract by not paying engineer that discharged engineer of performance obligations).   However, it is important for parties to consider that nonpayment does not automatically in of itself constitute a material breach.  For instance, did the contract have a pay-if-paid clause?  Did the party claiming nonpayment satisfy contractual conditions precedent to payment?  Was the nonpaying party withholding money due to a performance issue such as defective or incomplete work?  Was the payment late by a few days or was it never paid? Is the payment amount a relatively insignificant amount? Does the payment amount concern disputed amounts such as change orders or disputed defective or incomplete work? These are all questions that need to be a considered before a party takes an extreme position that it will no longer perform under the contract due to the nonpayment.  A party should consult their written contract and counsel before taking any extreme position that the other party materially breached the contract to best determine the strategy and lay the foundation for the position.

 


The case of Marshall Const., Ltd. v. Coastal Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., 569 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), illustrates the ramifications of a party without a written contract taking an extreme position due to nonpayment.   In this case, a general contractor entered into a contract to repair and replace roofs on three buildings at a Florida State Hospital.  The general contractor then entered into an oral contract with a roofing subcontractor.  During construction, a water leak arose with the new roof installed on one of the buildings. Both the general contractor and subcontractor appeared to agree that the new roof was defective and needed to be replaced.  However, the subcontractor could not finance the repair / replacement work without getting paid for the work it had performed.  The subcontractor was not paid for the work performed and determined that it would not perform any more work until it was paid.  As a result, the general contractor terminated the subcontractor and hired a new roofing subcontractor to finish the balance of the roofing work and replace the defective roof.  The subcontractor then sued the contractor for breaching their oral contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the subcontractor; the First District Court of Appeal reversed maintaining that the subcontractor actually committed the material breach:

 

“It is undisputed that Coastal [roofer] failed to install the roofing system on the east wing as required under the contract. When Coastal refused to repair the roof without further payment, it committed a material breach. Marshall  [general contractor] was entitled to treat the breach as a discharge of its duty to pay Coastal until such time as Coastal repaired the defective roof and fulfilled its contractual duties. In light of the fact that the terms of the [general contractor’s] contract [with the owner] required substantial completion by July 25, 1988, and that Coastal refused to return to work until it was paid, Marshall was completely justified in determining that a material breach had occurred and ordering Coastal off the job.

 

 

We find no substantial, competent evidence to support a finding that Marshall [general contractor] breached the contract. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Coastal [roofer] committed a material breach of the contract. This breach excused Marshall’s obligation to pay Coastal until the roof was repaired. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial on damages and liability.” 

Marshall Const., 569 So.2d at 848 (internal citations omitted).

 

 

Now, this case demonstrates why oral contracts are disfavored because rights and obligations are amorphous.  Nothing is clearly defined and there is no written agreement to consult.  If there was a written contract, most likely there would be a pay-if-paid provision in which the general contractor’s payment to the subcontractor was conditioned on its receipt of payment from the owner.  It is uncertain whether the owner paid the general contractor for the defective work; if the owner did not, then the general contractor’s payment obligation would not have been triggered.  But, let’s assume the owner did pay the general contractor.  Well, the subcontract most likely contained a clause pertaining to defective work that would authorize the subcontractor to fix the work at its own costs and also entitle the general contractor to withhold sums as the result of incomplete or defective work.  For instance, the standard form agreement between a contractor and subcontractor published by the ConsensusDocs (Document 750) contains the following provisions:

 

3.22.2.1 If the Architect/Engineer or Contractor rejects the Subcontract Work or the Subcontract Work is not in conformance with the Subcontract Documents, the Subcontractor shall promptly correct the Subcontract Work whether it had been fabricated, installed or completed. The Subcontractor shall be responsible for the costs of correcting such Subcontract Work, any additional testing, inspections, and compensation for services and expenses of the Architect/Engineer and Contractor made necessary by the defective Subcontract Work.

 

 

10.1.1 NOTICE TO CURE If the Subcontractor refuses or fails to supply enough properly qualified workers, proper materials, or maintain the Progress Schedule, or fails to make prompt payment to its workers, subcontractors or suppliers, or disregards laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction, or otherwise is guilty of a material breach of a provision of this Agreement, the Subcontractor shall be deemed in default of this Agreement. If the Subcontractor fails within three (3) business Days after written notification to commence and continue satisfactory correction of the default with diligence and promptness, then the Contractor without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, shall have the right to any or all of the following remedies:

10.1.1.1 supply workers, materials, equipment and facilities as the Contractor deems necessary for the completion of the Subcontract Work or any part which the Subcontractor has failed to complete or perform after written notification, and charge the cost, including reasonable overhead, profit, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to the Subcontractor;

10.1.1.2 contract with one or more additional contractors to perform such part of the Subcontract Work as the Contractor determines will provide the most expeditious completion of the Work, and charge the cost to the Subcontractor as provided under Clause 10.1.1.1; or

10.1.1.3 withhold any payments due or to become due the Subcontractor pending corrective action in amounts sufficient to cover losses and compel performance to the extent required by and to the satisfaction of the Contractor.

 

These provisions would  hurt a subcontractor’s argument that it should get paid for work performed, including defective work performed, so that it could finance the repairs.

 

Again, before extreme positions are taken, a party should absolutely consult their written contract to determine  rights, obligations, and risks they agreed to.  Having a lawyer involved on the front end during the contract negotiation can help a party negotiate and/or appreciate the risks they are agreeing to. Even if a lawyer was not involved on the front end, having the lawyer involved when difficult issues arise during the course of construction will allow a party to preserve rights / arguments and take positions or avoid positions based on a determined strategy. As the expression goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!”

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

VENUE FOR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND DISPUTE

Posted on by


The venue (or locale of the forum) in which to initiate or transfer a Miller Act (40 USC s. 3131-3134) payment bond dispute is an important consideration.    The Miller Act provides that the venue must be “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.”  40 USC s. 3133(3)(B).  However, this venue requirement will not prevent a party from initiating the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit or transferring the lawsuit to a venue governed by a mandatory forum selection provision (one in which provides an exclusive venue for disputes) in the subcontract. See, e.g., U.S. f/u/b/o Pittsburgh Tank & Tower, Inc. v. G&C Enterprises, Inc., 62 F.3d 35  (1st Cir. 1995) (finding that Miller Act payment bond lawsuit was subject to venue provision in subcontract).

 

 

For instance, in U.S. f/u/b/o MDI Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, 2014 WL 1576975 (N.D.Ala. 2014), a subcontractor on a federal project initiated a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the surety and the prime contractor in the Northern District of Alabama because that is where the project was located. The surety and prime contractor moved to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the Middle District of Florida pursuant to a venue provision in the subcontract.  The district court explained that “a valid forum-selection clause can trump the Miller Act’s venue provision.”  MDI Services, supra, at *2 citing In re Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 588 F.2d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1979) (finding that Miller Act venue clause is subject to variation pursuant to the parties’ forum selection clause).  The district court, therefore, granted the motion to transfer venue.

 

If you are a prime contractor, it is a safe idea to include language in the forum selection provision that reflects that it governs any claim against the contractor’s payment bond surety.  This way, if the dispute is asserted only against the payment bond surety, the surety (routinely being defended by the prime contractor) can transfer the venue to the mandatory venue per the forum selection provision in the subcontract.  On the other hand, if you are a subcontractor  and the venue is silent as it relates to claims regarding the payment bond surety, perhaps you only want to assert the payment bond claim against the surety (and not the prime contractor) to, at a minimum, create the argument that the surety should not be able to transfer the venue based on a forum selection provision that should not govern the surety.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

AN OWNER’S “INTENDED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY” STATUS UNDER A SUBCONTRACT

Posted on by


Sometimes, during a dispute, there are arguments as to whether an owner is an INTENDED third party beneficiary of the subcontract by and between the general contractor and the subcontractor. There are instances where an owner desires to be an intended third party beneficiary of a subcontract so that it could pursue a breach of contract claim directly against the subcontractor. (These instances can relate to concerns over the solvency of the general contractor and/or the insurance coverage limits of the general contractor.)

 

“A party is an intended [third party] beneficiary only if the parties to the contract clearly express, or the contract itself expresses, and intent to benefit the third party or a class of persons to which that party claims to belong.” Dingle v. Dellinger, 2014 WL 470679, *1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).  In other words, an intended third party beneficiary is not a signatory or party to the contract. Rather, it is expressly clear from the contract that the contract’s intent is to directly benefit that third party. Dingle, 2014 WL at *1 (finding to assert a breach of an intended third party beneficiary contract, the third party must show an intent that the contract was to directly and primarily benefit the third party). Because the intent of the contract is to directly benefit the third party, the third party is entitled to enforce the contract and, thus, sue for a breach of that contract.

 

However, if a third party is not an intended third party beneficiary of the contract, it will be deemed an incidental beneficiary that maintains no rights whatsoever to enforce the contract. McKinney-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

 

Now, a property owner is typically not regarded as an intended third party beneficiary of a subcontract between a general contractor and subcontractor. See J.W. Hodges Drywall, Inc. v. Mizner Falls, LLP, 865 So.2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (owner could not enforce arbitration provision in subcontract between general contractor and drywall subcontractor); accord Lillibridge Health Care Services, Inc. v. Hunton Brady Architects, P.A., 2010 WL 3788859 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (owner not intended third party beneficiary of mechanical engineer’s subconsultant agreement with architect); City of Tampa v. Thornton-Tomasetti, P.C., 646 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (public owner not intended third party beneficiary of subconsultant’s agreement between subconsultant and architect); Vogel Bros. Bldg. Co. v. Scarborough Constructors, Inc., 513 So.2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (public owner not intended third party beneficiary of subcontract). Indeed, the Fifth District of Florida maintained: “As one court put it, ‘[a]lthough the work performed by subcontractors ultimately accrues to the property owner, the owner is ordinarily regarded as only an incidental beneficiary of the subcontract.” Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So.2d 484, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (superseded on other grounds) quoting National Cash Register Co. v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 490 F.2d 285, 286 (7th Cir. 1974). In addition, a subcontractor is not going to be deemed an intended third party beneficiary between the prime contract between the owner and the general contractor that would entitle it to assert a breach of contract claim against the owner. Esposito v. True Color Enterprises Const., Inc., 45 So.3d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

 

If an owner wants to be an INTENDED third party beneficiary of the subcontracts, it should require the general contractor to include certain buzz language in the subcontracts that expressly sets forth this intent. Such buzz words would be something to the effect:

 

“It is understood and agreed that this subcontract is to primarily and directly benefit the Owner; therefore, the Owner is deemed an intended third party beneficiary of the subcontract and can enforce the subcontract as an intended third party beneficiary.”

 

 

This language clearly indicates the required intent for the intended third party beneficiary status that will enable the owner to enforce the subcontract. Without such language that clearly articulates this intent, an intended third party beneficiary status should not be extended to all situations where an owner decides to sue a subcontractor for breach of subcontract when the subcontractor was not hired by the owner. Although the owner will make the argument that the subcontractor’s work is to benefit the owner under the subcontract, the subcontractor could make a similar argument that the owner’s payment obligations to the general contractor under the prime contract is to benefit the subcontractors since the owner knew that the general contractor was not self-performing the work. If however the owner is an intended third party beneficiary of the subcontract and enforces the subcontract, it should be deemed bound by all of the terms, conditions, and burdens of the subcontract. See Woods v. Christensen Shipyards, Ltd., 2005 WL 5654643 (S.D.Fla. 2005); accord Consolidated Bathurst, Ltd. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Gustaf Erikson, 645 F.Supp. 884, 886 (S.D.Fla. 1986).

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.