Photo of Bart Reed

Bart Reed

Subscribe to Bart Reed's Posts

Bart Reed is a partner in the firm’s Seattle office and practices with the Real Estate and Construction group. With extensive experience in complex commercial and construction law, multistate litigation and ADR (representing clients in 28 states), Bart focuses his practice on construction and design issues and disputes, representing owners, developers, contractors, subcontractors, design professionals and sureties, in diverse matters on both public and private projects. His experience covers a wide range of issues affecting design and construction clients, including contract drafting/negotiation, non-payment and surety claims, construction liens and payment bond claims, design disputes, construction defects, and scheduling issues in the defense and prosecution of delay/impact claims.

Click here for Bart Reed's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Bart ReedBart's Linkedin Profile

In Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, No. 94711-2 (Wash. Sept. 29, 2018), the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ruled in favor of a municipality on the issue of whether the general contractor complied with a contract’s notice of claim provision.  Relying on Mike M. Johnson, Inc. v. Spokane County, 150 Wn.2d 375, 78 P.3d 161 (2003), the court in Nova Contracting held that a broad notice of claim provision (waiving “any claims” for noncompliance) (a) mandates written, rather than actual, notice of claims and (b) applies not only to claims for cost of work performed, but also to claims for (i) expectancy and consequential damages and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Slip op. at 2-3, 15.

The case arose from certain disputes between the City of Olympia (the “City”) and a contractor (“NOVA”) in connection with a public works contract in which the contractor agreed to replace an aging cement culvert. The contract contained a “notice of protest” provision from the Washington State Department of Transportation’s standard specifications.  This provision required the contractor to “‘give a signed written notice of protest’ ‘[i]mmediately’ if it ‘disagree[d] with anything required in a change order, another written order, or an oral order from the [City] Engineer, including any direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the Engineer.’” Id. at 1-2.

During Seattle’s current construction boom, general contractors and subcontractors may be concentrating more on finalizing work on their projects than on worrying about the niceties of their construction contract documents. It is no less prudent now, however, for the parties to remain aware of their contractual rights and responsibilities—especially those tied to payment.  One payment term commonly contained in subcontract agreements is the contingent payment provision, which, depending on its terms, may pose an interesting challenge to construction lien rights.

Contingent payment provisions (e.g., “pay-if-paid” or “pay-when-paid” clauses) are frequently inserted in subcontract agreements. The hallmark of pay-if-paid clauses is usually “condition precedent” language, where the general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree that the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner is a condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor.  Under this clause, the subcontractor assumes the risk of non-payment by the owner.  On the other hand, pay-when-paid clauses have been interpreted to delay the subcontractor’s entitlement to payment until the owner pays, or for some reasonable time if the owner does not pay.

As the construction boom continues in Washington (and especially in Seattle), owners and developers look for ways to mitigate risk on projects. Risk mitigation is often accomplished through negotiated terms and conditions of the parties’ contractual agreements. In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce article, I explore the validity of advance contractual lien releases and…

Microsoft Corporation recently announced plans to revitalize its 500-acre Redmond campus with dramatic renovation and expansion work to be completed over the next five to seven years. The project will include the addition of 18 new buildings, 6.7 million square feet of renovated office space, $150 million in transportation infrastructure improvements, public spaces, sports fields…

Practical Law, a Thomson Reuters Company and division of West Publishing Corporation that produces online resources for attorneys across myriad legal topics, recently invited members of the Construction & Design Group of Stoel Rives’ Portland and Seattle offices to provide construction lien resources for Oregon and Washington.  According to Kate Kruk, Practical Law’s Content Acquisition…

On July 6, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court confirmed that the equitable rule announced in Olympic Steamship—providing for attorney fees where the insurer compels the insured to take legal action—applies to performance bond sureties on public projects.[1]  In King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, the Court affirmed the trial court’s award of over $14 million in attorney fees and costs against sureties of a public works contract.[2]

In 2006, King County contracted with a joint venture of three construction companies to build the piping/conveyance system for the new Brightwater wastewater treatment project.  The joint venture contractor submitted a performance bond from five surety companies.  Under the contract, if the contractor was in default, the sureties were obligated to step in and remedy the default.  When the project was delayed, King County declared the contractor in default and asked the sureties to cure.  They refused, claiming that the contractor was not in default.

On June 9, 2017, my colleague, Karl Oles, and I (both from the Seattle office of Stoel Rives) will present at the annual meeting and seminar for WSBA’s Construction Section, which this year is entitled Washington Statutes Affecting Construction.  This seminar, located at the WSBA Conference Center in Seattle, will feature in-depth discussions regarding…

The shared risk/reward concept of an integrated project delivery (IPD) arrangement is an increasingly attractive collaborative approach to construction projects.  But IPD is still a relatively new concept with unique risks and challenges.  In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss some key points that should be considered before undertaking …

Lurking in the depths of the Contractor Registration Act (Chapter 18.27 RCW) is an important statute that has the potential to eviscerate lien rights if not satisfied by contractors furnishing improvements on certain projects in Washington. RCW 18.27.114 requires that contractors working on residential projects or commercial projects of limited scope furnish a Model Disclosure Statement Notice to Customer (“Disclosure Statement”) prior to commencing work.

The form of this document and additional information required of a contractor can be found on the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (“L&I”) website.   The Disclosure Statement advises the contractor’s customer (upfront in the contract documents usually, and prior to the commencement of work) of his/her rights and responsibilities, discloses the contractor’s registration and bonding requirements, and warns the customer of the contractor’s right to file a lien claim in the event of nonpayment.

On November 4, 2016, my colleague, Andrew Gibson (from the Portland office of Stoel Rives), and I will co-chair a joint OSBA/WSBA construction law CLE, entitled Two States of Construction Law: Working in Both Washington and Oregon, located at the Heathman Lodge in Vancouver, Washington. This seminar will include a panel of knowledgeable lawyers…