Contractual Time Limits for Providing Notice of Claim Must be Taken Seriously

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a decision that should cause every contractor some concern.  In J. WM. Foley Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 158 Conn. App. 27 (Conn.App. 2015), the Appellate Court upheld a decision that denied a contractor’s $4.7 million delay claim because the contractor did not provide proper notice of the claim within the 10 days required by the contract.  The case is disconcerting because the court’s decision appears to be based upon the contractor’s failure to strictly comply with the contract’s notice provision.  There is no discussion indicating that the owner was harmed or prejudiced by the delay in receiving notice of the claim.  Moreover, the decision acknowledges that the contractor had provided the owner with notice of events giving rise to the claim.  In fact, despite denying the delay claim, the trial court awarded the plaintiff over one million dollars for its direct costs, which arose out of the same facts as the delay claim.

 

The project underlying the dispute in J. WM. Foley Inc. was the construction of a utility pipeline.  The parties’ agreement stated that the contractor was expected to encounter subsurface obstructions and that the contractor would be entitled to additional compensation associated with same. 

Understanding Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead

It is readily apparent that – if a project is delayed – the contractor is losing money.  The increased direct costs associated with the labor and equipment on site are obvious. The more complex question arises when considering the effect a delayed project has on a contractor’s recovery of its home office overhead, where “home office overhead” is defined as the cost of the contractor’s main office including, but not limited to, rent, utilities, executive and management salaries, staff, office equipment, office supplies, taxes, insurance, etc.  Everyone intuitively understands that a delayed project increases such costs in the same manner that that delays increase the project’s direct costs but increases in home office overhead cannot be directly correlated to any one project because a contractor typically has several projects with overlapping schedules underway at any given time.  Over the years, courts have attempted to determine the damages necessary “to compensate a contractor for its indirect costs that cannot be allocated to a particular contract for the period during which the government has made contractual performance impossible.”  Charles G. Williams Constr., Inc. v. White, 326 F.3d 1376, 1380-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  “As a result, there are at least nine formulas that have been used,

After Nine Years, There is Still Ambiguity in The State’s Prequalification Program

On October 1, 2004, acting through its Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”), the State of Connecticut implemented a prequalification program for all contractors bidding on certain public projects.  2003 Ct. ALS 215, 1.  Specifically, “[t]he DAS Contractor Prequalification Program (C.G.S §4a-100) [(the “Program”)] requires all contractors to prequalify before they can bid on a contract or perform work pursuant to a contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, repair or demolition of any public building or any other public work by the state or a municipality, estimated to cost more than $500,000 and which is funded in whole or in part with state funds, except a public highway or bridge project or any other construction project administered by the Department of Transportation.”  DAS website, http://www.das.state.ct.us/cr1.aspx?page=10.  On October 1, 2007, the Program was expanded to apply to subcontractors whose contract exceeded $500,000.  http://www.das.state.ct.us/fp1.aspx?page=111.  Still, questions remain as to whether an apparent low bid submitted by a DAS prequalified contractor may be rejected by a public owner and/or its construction manager and the information that a bidder may have to submit to be awarded a project can be unduly burdensome and repetitive.

According to DAS,

Recent OCIP Decision Reminds Contractors About the Importance of Contract Language

In recent years, Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (“OCIP”) have become more prevalent in public and private construction projects.  An OCIP “is a class of ‘wrap-up’ insurance that provides coverage for many construction project participants under one program.”  Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760, 767 (Conn. 2013).  Such programs typically include commercial general liability insurance and worker’s compensation insurance.  In general, OCIPs reduce a project’s overall cost because the owner does not have to pay the multiple layers of duplicative administration associated with the general contractor and each subcontractor having its own insurance coverage.  The general understanding is that the project owner benefits from the savings but a recent Superior Decision reminds us that contractual duties and obligations are derived from the plain language of the contract and not what may reasonably inferred.

In Elevator Serv. Co. v. Reg’l Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 687 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2013), Elevator Service Co., Inc. (“Elevator Service”) and Regional Saffolding & Hosting, Inc. (“Regional Scaffolding”) entered into an agreement pertaining to a project known as the Royal Bank of Scotland (the “Project”).  The issue before the court was whether Elevator Service had to pass along to Regional Scaffolding a discount that it received through the subject project’s OCIP. 

Another Step Closer to Understanding Pay-When-Paid Clauses

No provision in a standard construction contract has been more debated than the requirement for the general contractor to pay its subcontractors after its receipt of payment from the owner.  In situations where the owner does not pay the general contractor, the general contractor typically argues that it has no obligation to pay the subcontractor even if the reason for the owner’s nonpayment had nothing to do with the subcontractor.  Conversely, the subcontractor argues that – when the reason for the owner’s nonpayment is not the subcontractor’s fault – the general contractor must pay the monies the subcontractor is due.  Generally, the courts have said that contract language which states that the subcontractor shall not be paid until after the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner merely sets forth the time for payment and does not transfer the risk of the owner’s insolvency from the general contractor to the subcontractor.  “Normally and legally, the insolvency of the owner will not defeat the claim of the subcontractor against the general contractor.”  Sil/Carr Corp. v. Bartlett, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1665 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 26, 2012).  It is, however, possible for the contractor to transfer the risk of the owner’s nonpayment to the subcontractor.