Construction Industry

Subscribe to Construction Industry via RSS

In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce Construction column, I discuss the need to know Oregon construction contracting law to avoid unwanted consequences. In Oregon, construction contracts are subject to a wide variety of legal requirements, many of which are often ignored or, in some cases, violated with disastrous results. Following link will provide a summary…

In recent years, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”), the Legislature and the California courts have expanded the application of the prevailing wage law to projects through the broad definition of a “public works,” beyond what most contractors, owners and even counsel would expect.  While most involved in construction anticipate that any work directly for, or direct payment of funds by, a public entity would trigger the prevailing wage laws, several decisions, determinations and recent legislation have significantly expanded the prevailing wage reach over the last several years.

Very recently, the DIR determined that both the shell construction of a Volkswagen auto dealership, and the separate tenant improvements in that shell, were public projects subject to prevailing wage law due to the land transfer by the City to the developer “because the Land is a transfer of an asset of value for less than fair market price”.

Similarly, in May 2012, the DIR determined that a contractor involved in the $95 million privately funded development and construction of a new agricultural facility was subject to prevailing wage law, but for the application of the de minimis doctrine, when the contractor accepted the City’s “in lieu of fees” for the City required infrastructure improvements.  The DIR determined that “[i]t does not matter that Company is performing infrastructure improvements itself or that Company could have elected to simply pay the fee and let the City perform the infrastructure improvement work. Company plans to accept the fee waiver. Therefore, it has received or will receive public funds within the meaning of subdivision (b)(4)”.  For additional applications and coverage determinations, see also the DIR’s most recent determination.  Previously in January 2012, the Legislature eliminated the applicability of the DIR’s 2010 determinations that solar photovoltaic power purchase agreements that include installation of leased equipment on public property were not public works through the passage of Labor Code section 1720.6.  This statute specifically defines a public project in part to be the “construction or maintenance of renewable energy generating capacity or energy efficiency improvements,” if certain elements are triggered.  See the DIR determinations from April 21, 2010, PW Case 2008-038 and 2009-005, for the prior analysis:  http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWDecision.asp.  (See also Lab. Code, §§ 1720-1720.6.)

A California appellate court recently held that the value of an original construction contract is admissible as evidence to limit a contractor’s right to recovery under Civil Code section 3123(a), even by a property buyer that was not a party to the construction contract. Appel v. Los Angeles Superior Court (CA No. B244590, Mar. 11, 2013). The net effect in this instance could be a reduction of the value of the contractor’s lien claim by at least $13.5 million. 

The underlying facts reflect an all-too-common scenario of a failed project. Here, a single-purpose entity developed a large condominium project, originally inked with a GMP of $65 million. Increases through construction by approved change orders moved the GMP to $81 million. Disputes arose, and the contractor thereafter claimed an additional $13.5 million above the $81 million GMP. Unfortunately here, several units of the project had been purchased by this point, and the buyers were then subject with the developer to the mechanic’s lien of the contractor. Prior to trial, the developer entity and its alter ego affiliates negotiated a pre-trial settlement with the contractor that included in part a restatement of the final contract GMP to $95.5 million, purportedly settling the issue of the “value” of the construction contract for the contractor to continue pursuing its lien claim against the unit buyers. During pre-trial motions, the trial court commented on the impact of the negotiated settlement and “expressed doubt as to whether the unit owners should be precluded from challenging the value of the GMP contract set forth in the settlement agreement:

 

COURT: Are you saying [the unit owners] don’t have a right to attack the . . . value of the contract which was agreed after the fact as part of the settlement?

[CONTRACTOR]: We don’t believe they have a right to attack that.

COURT: Well, that is just boggling to my mind. [¶] . . . [¶] [I]t totally boggles my mind, because you could agree to anything, anything [in the settlement].”

 

The trial court also stated that it saw “‘no purpose’ for the settling parties’ decision to raise the value of the GMP other than to hinder the unit owners’ lien foreclosure defense.” Although the trial court took the matter under submission, it later felt constrained to rely on an existing decision cited by neither party and ruled against the unit buyers, precluding them from challenging the post-lien GMP value set during the settlement between the developer and contractor.

As they say, timing is everything, and the success of a development project often hinges on when it will be complete. Whether it’s a new business, a new school, or some other project, delay can be disastrous for an owner. Here are five tips to reduce the risks of project delay.

Avoid terms that shift…

Litigation can be one of the most time-consuming and expensive ways to resolve disputes in the construction industry. Often, parties to construction-related disputes prefer to resolve them through alternate dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation or arbitration. However, sometimes litigation cannot be avoided. In his latest article in the Daily Journal of Commerce, Guy Randles…

A California appellate court has clarified for public owners and contractors (a) what the results may be if the owner does not timely sign a change order and (b) under what circumstances a change order is required. In G. Voskanian Construction, Inc. v. Alhambra Unified School District, No. B221005 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2012)…

The Department of Labor’s latest jobs report includes some encouraging news for the construction industry. In January, construction jobs increased by 21,000 and jobs in architectural and engineering services increased by 7,000. Over the past two months, “nonresidential specialty trade contractors” added 30,000 jobs. We’ll keep a close eye on next month’s jobs report to…

2/1/2012; 4:37 p.m.

I’m heading down to Houston for a meeting of the ABA Forum on the Construction Industry.  You can learn about the Forum on the ABA website. It has subdivisions that focus on various interests such as insurance, owners and lenders, etc. I’ll try to "live blog" from the meeting, describing papers of interest that…