“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered.

Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses.

The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues."

In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.

In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”

On the cusp of the 70th anniversary of the originally named New York Airport’s opening in Queens, N.Y., a blue-ribbon panel in 2017 released a report to the governor of New York: The facility, once popularly known as Idlewild Airport, needed a comprehensive master plan and a total transformation. In the seven years since, builders at John F. Kennedy International Airport have been anything but idle, and the speed at which that $19-billion transformation of the roads and terminals is occurring could be called wild.

Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record

Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

Read the full story...

A contract awarded, protested, terminated, appealed, then reinstated. It’s no secret that federal construction procurements are plagued with uncertainty. From delays, constructive suspensions, compromised supply chains, the litigation-laden critical path method, and the mandate for all construction materials used in federally funded projects for infrastructure to be produced in the United States under the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) (to name just a few traditional and emerging favorites), just one of these issues could fill the rest of anyone’s month with substantive research. To add one more, which is entirely unique to bid protests, federal contractors–including construction contractors–listed in a General Service Administration (GSA) Schedule may have new grounds to have a contract award reinstated that was terminated by a federal agency pending a GAO decision.

GAO Protest
An initial GAO protest filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) argued that the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (Agency) wrongfully made an award to Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) when the Agency: (1) improperly evaluated quotes; and (2) failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. At issue was a competed task order with Kearney under a GSA FSS multiple-award contract. Before the GAO issued an opinion, however, it held an unrecorded predictive-outcome conference with Deloitte and Kearney where the only mutual consensus was the likely ineligibility of all offerors for the relevant award. The Agency subsequently elected to take corrective action, terminating Kearney’s contract award for convenience, amending the solicitation to avoid issues (including undisputed issues) addressed in the GAO protest. After the Agency adopted their corrective action, the GAO protest was dismissed as academic and moot.

Modular construction has grown significantly over the last few years and shows no signs of slowing down. This construction method is a departure from traditional approaches where all construction activity occurs onsite. Modular construction involves building standardized project components—usually in an offsite, controlled environment—which are then transported and assembled at the project site. Offsite construction generally allows for better quality control and economic efficiency, as it can utilize an assembly-line process. Modular fabrication can also centralize skilled labor in regions with lower labor costs.

Establishing each party's expectations upfront is always important, but even more so in modular construction since much of the construction activity is performed away from the ultimate project site. This requires extensive coordination among designers, fabricators, installers and owners to ensure construction, testing and quality progresses accordingly. Every field change and design clash could have an exponential impact on the modular fabrication efficiencies given the assembly-line approach and remote nature of modular work.

Reprinted courtesy of Chad Theriot & Brad Sands, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose mission is to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, released new guidelines on June 18, 2024, entitled Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. The guidelines are in support of its Strategic Enforcement Plan for the fiscal years 2024-2028 for combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring in the construction industry. With these guidelines, the EEOC has identified harassment as an ongoing issue in the construction industry, and that immediate attention and resolution is required.

The EEOC specifically recommends that the following five core principles that it has found effective in preventing and addressing harassment be implemented by construction industry employers:

1. Committed and engaged leadership;
2. Consistent and demonstrated accountability;
3. Strong and comprehensive harassment policies;
4. Trusted and accessible complaint procedures; and
5. Regular, interactive training tailored to the audience and the organization.

Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com