Tag: construction

Letters of Intent in Construction Project Negotiations–Pt 1

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Anyone who works in the construction industry knows how important it is for everybody to have the same understanding about the terms of a project, including the materials needed, deadlines to be met, and the procedure for resolving disputes. Without a reasonable degree of certainty about these things, there is always the risk that something will go wrong and that money will be lost.

Before all of the details for a construction project are hammered out in a contract, though, there is the negotiation process. Oftentimes, parties begin to take action and invest in a project before a formal contract has been reached. One tool that is sometimes used to prevent financial loss before a contract has been reached is a letter of intent.

A letter of intent is a document that provides a general statement of an agreement that has yet to be finalized. Letters of intent are not contracts, though they may still be enforced in court, at least as to some provisions. Exactly how a letter of intent is treated by a court when disputes arise is not an easy question to answer, partly because the law differs from state to state and partly because it depends on the intention of the parties with respect to the letter of intent, whether they intended to be bound by the letter.

In determining whether parties intended to be bound by a letter of intent, courts don’t simply take parties’€™ word for it. Rather, they consider the specific language of the agreement and other signs that speak to each party’s intent. This can sometimes include actions taken by the parties after the letter of intent is signed.

In our next post, we wi€™ll continue this discussion on letters of intent and how they should be approached in the negotiation process.

ARTICLE BY

Business and Corporate Law Practice Group

OF

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

What You Need To Know: Boston and Cambridge Energy Use Disclosure Ordinances

logo

On July 28, 2014, Cambridge, Massachusetts enacted an energy use disclosure ordinance, joining Boston and several other cities.  The Cambridge ordinance is similar to its Boston counterpart, but contains several differences.  Property owners in each municipality should be familiar with these ordinances.

1.  Properties Covered By Each Ordinance

Cambridge:

  • Municipal buildings of 10,000 square feet or larger;
  • Non-residential buildings of 25,000 square feet or larger; and
  • Multi-family residential buildings with 50 or more units.

Boston:

  • City buildings (those the City owns or for which the City regularly pays energy bills);
  • Non-residential buildings (those located on a parcel of land with one or more buildings of at least 35,000 square feet and of which 50% or more is used for non-residential purposes, and which are not City buildings); and
  • Residential buildings (i) (a parcel with one or more buildings with 35 or more dwelling units that comprise more than 50% of the building, excluding parking, or (ii) any parcel with one or more buildings of at least 35,000 square feet and that is not a City building or a non-residential building, or (iii) any grouping of residential buildings designated by the Commission as an appropriate reporting unit).

2.  Obligations of Owners and Tenants of Covered Properties

Both ordinances broadly defined “Owner” to include owners of record or a designated agent, and net lessees for a term of at least forty-nine years.

Cambridge:

No later than May 1st of each year, all covered properties must disclose energy consumed by such property during the prior year, together with other information required by an EPA Benchmarking Tool:  (i) address; (ii) primary use type; (iii) gross floor area; (iv) energy use intensity; (v) weather normalized source energy use intensity; (vi) annual greenhouse gas emissions; (vii) water use; (viii) energy performance score; and (ix) compliance or noncompliance with ordinance.

Tenants (those who lease, occupy, or hold possession) of a covered property must comply with an owner’s request for information within thirty days or risk a fine.

Boston:

No later than May 15th of each year, owner of each covered non-city building shall accurately report previous calendar year’s energy, water use, and any other building characteristics necessary to evaluate absolute and relative energy use intensity of each building through Energy Star Portfolio Manager.

Owners must request information from tenants separately metered by utility companies in January for the previous year, and tenant must report information to owner no later than end of February, though a tenant’s failure to respond does not relieve an owner’s duty to report.

Enforcement and Penalties

Cambridge:

Failure to comply with the ordinance or misrepresentation of any material fact may result in a written warning on the first violation, and a fine of up to $300 per day for any subsequent violation.

Boston:

The Air Pollution Control Commission may issue written notice of violation, including specific delinquencies, to those failing to comply, giving thirty days within which an owner may cure the violation or request a hearing.  The Commission also may seek injunctive relief requiring an owner or non-residential tenant to comply with the ordinance.

Boston provides a sliding scale fine schedule for failure to comply with a notice of violation, depending on the type of property, which ranges from $35 per violation up to $200 per violation.  Each day of noncompliance is a separate violation, but owners or non-residential tenants may not be liable for a fine of more than $3,000 per calendar year per building or tenancy.

Both cities are actively developing programs to address climate change and adaptation.  Property owners should monitor these efforts as well as similar initiatives by federal and state agencies.

ARTICLE BY

Jennifer L. Ioli
OF
Sherin and Lodgen LLP

Cyber and Technology Risk Insurance for the Construction Sector

Much Shelist law firm logo

The recent, well-publicized retail store data breach controversies have spawned a number of lawsuits and insurance claims. Not surprisingly, insurers have responded with attempts to fight claims for coverage for such losses. Insurance underwriters are carefully monitoring decisions being handed down by courts in these lawsuits. All of this activity has led to a new emphasis on cyber and technology risk and assessments, as well as on insurance-program strategies.

These developments have ramifications for the construction industry that include, and go well beyond, the data-breach context. Contractors, design professionals and owners may find that in addition to losses caused by data breaches, other types of losses occasioned by technology-related incidents may not be covered by their existing insurance programs.

Specifically, insureds may find themselves with substantial coverage gaps because:

  • data and technology exclusions have been added to general liability policies.

  • such losses typically involve economic losses (as opposed to property damages or personal-injury losses) that insurers argue are not covered by general liability policies.

  • data and technology losses may be the result of manufacturing glitches rather than professional negligence covered by professional liability policies.

Coverage for claims involving glitches, manufacturing errors and data breaches in technology-driven applications — such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), estimating and scheduling programs, and 3D printing — may be uncertain. A number of endorsements are currently available for data breach coverage, but insurers don’t necessarily have the construction industry in mind as they provide these initial products.

In addition, there is no such thing as a “standard” cyber liability policy, endorsement or exclusion. Insurers have their own forms with their own wording, and as seemingly minor differences in language may have a significant impact in coverage, such matters should be run past counsel.

Construction insurance brokers are telling us that insurers are in the process of determining how to respond to cyber and technology risk claims, what products to offer going forward, and how to underwrite and price these products. Keith W. Jurss, a senior vice president in Willis’s National Construction Practice warns:

“As the construction industry continues to identify the unique “cyber” risks that it faces we are identifying gaps in the current suite of “cyber” insurance coverages that are available.  In addition, new exclusionary language related to cyber risk under CGL and other policies adds to the gap.  The insurance industry is slowly beginning to respond with endorsements that give back coverage or new policies designed to address the specific risks of the construction industry.

“As we identify cyber insurance underwriters willing to evaluate the risks specific to the construction industry, we are seeing the development of unique solutions in the market. There is, however, more work required and as construction clients continue to demand solutions the industry will be forced to respond.”

Consequently, this is a time to stay in close touch with qualified construction insurance brokers who understand the sector and have their hands on the pulse of the latest available cyber and technology risk products. As these products become available, clients may also want to consider what cyber and technology risk coverage to require on projects and whether to include these requirements in downstream contracts.

ARTICLE BY

Josh M. Leavitt
OF
Much Shelist, P.C.

Recent Changes to the Law of Private Construction Contracts – Your Government is Here to Help You Again – Massachusetts

As part of the end-of-session rush at the Massachusetts General Court this summer, significant changes were made to Massachusetts law governing private construction contracts at the urging of general contractor and subcontractor industry groups. Members of the development and lending community were largely taken unaware as the bill moved forward, and unsuccessfully attempted in the later stages of the process to modify or defeat the legislation. Consequently, developers, lenders, contractors, sub-contractors, design professionals and attorneys need to be aware of substantial changes (and many unanswered questions) created by the new statute in the areas of withholding and release of retainage, defining substantial completion, and preparation of punchlists.

Key highlights of Chapter 276 of the Acts of 2014, to be codified at M.G.L. c. 149, sec. 29F:

  • Applicability: All contracts on projects on which the prime contract (a) is entered into after November 6, 2014, and (b) has a contract price of $3 million or more, except projects of 1 to 4 dwelling units.

  • Withholding of Retainage:  Caps retainage to be withheld from progress payments at 5% (long-standing practice has been to retain 10% of each progress payment, with reduced (or no) withholding of further retainage after the project achieves some level (typically 50%) of completion).

  • New Definition of “substantial completion”: “The stage in the progress of the project when the work… is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract for construction so that the project owner may occupy or utilize the work for its intended use…”  Parties may divide a project into phases and apply the statutory scheme applicable to “substantial completion” separately to each designated project phase.

Process for determining substantial completion:

  • Within 14 days after achieving substantial completion, the prime contractor submits a notice of substantial completion to the owner (form provided in the statute) with contractor’s determination of the date of substantial completion.

  • Within 14 days after receiving this notice, the owner must accept or reject it and return it to the contractor.  If the owner does neither, the notice is deemed accepted and the date of substantial completion determined by the contractor is binding.

  • If the owner rejects the notice, it must notify the prime contractor within this 14-day period, including the “factual and contractual basis for the rejection”, which must be certified as made in good faith.  The dispute is then governed by the contractual dispute resolution provisions, which the contractor must commence within 7 days of its receipt of the owner’s rejection notice.

Punchlist:

  • Within 14 days after the date of substantial completion is established (either through the notice process described above or the applicable dispute resolution proceeding), the owner must submit to the prime contractor a list (certified as made in good faith) of (a) all defective or incomplete work and (b) all outstanding deliverables required under the prime contract.

  • Within 7 days after the prime contractor’s receipt of that list, it must submit a similar list (certified as made in good faith) of all defective or incomplete work and outstanding required deliverables to each sub from whom it is withholding retainage.

Release of Retainage:

  • Applications for release of retainage can be submitted starting 60 days after the date of substantial completion (unless the contract provides for earlier submission), and each application must be accompanied by a list (certified as made in good faith) identifying the defective or incomplete work and deliverables on that party’s punchlist which have been completed, repaired and delivered.

  • Contract must permit applications for release of retainage at least monthly.

  • Retainage (other than that withheld in accordance with the new statute) must be released within 30 days of submission of the application for release, with an additional 7 days added for each tier of subcontractor.

Withholding Release of Retainage:

  • Only the following amounts can be withheld from retainage in response to an application for its release:

    • For incomplete, incorrect or missing deliverables, either (a) the value of the deliverables as mutually agreed to by the contracting parties, or (b) if no value has been agreed to, the reasonable value of the deliverables (not to exceed 2.5% of the total adjusted contract price of the party seeking release of retainage);

    • 150% of the reasonable cost to complete or correct incomplete or defective work; and

    • Reasonable value of any claims, costs, expenses and, where permitted under the contract of the party seeking release of retainage, attorneys’ fees.

  • No retainage can be withheld unless the withholding party provides to the party seeking the retainage, before the date payment is due, a notice (certified as made in good faith) (i) identifying the defective or incomplete work and the incomplete, incorrect or missing deliverables, (ii) the “factual and contractual basis” for any claims, and (iii) the value attributable to each item of incomplete or defective work, deliverable, and claim.

  • Multiple sequential applications for release of retainage are permitted as work is completed or corrected/deliverables are delivered/claims are resolved.

  • Unless the owner has declared the prime contractor in default under its contract, the owner cannot withhold retainage owed by the contractor to a subcontractor except for withholding based on a default by that sub.

  • Rejection of an application for release of retainage is subject to contractual dispute resolution procedures.  Contract provisions requiring a party to wait more than 30 days after rejection of an application for release of retainage before being permitted to commence dispute resolution procedures are void and unenforceable.

Additional Provisions:

  • All communications provided for in the new statute may be made electronically.

  • Section 29F(l) provides that any provision in a contract “which purports to waive, limit or subvert this section or redefine or expand the conditions for achievement of substantial completion for payment of retainage, shall be void and unenforceable.”

The new statute creates major areas of uncertainty for all parties on private construction projects, including:

  • How far an owner can go in adding requirements for deliverables, issuance of permanent C of Os, completion of commissioning, etc. as conditions to achieving “substantial completion”, in light of the new statutory definition of that term and the limitations imposed by Section 29F(l);

  • How an owner can mobilize its design professionals, its lender’s construction inspector, and its own construction team to respond to the prime contractor’s notice of substantial completion in the detailed manner required by the statute within the very short (but required) 14-day period;

  • How disputes over whether substantial completion has been achieved can be resolved through contractual dispute resolution procedures without jeopardizing project delivery deadlines;

  • What constitutes the “factual and contractual basis” required for various actions by the owner; and

  • How lenders will respond to the mandatory reduction in retainage to 5% (some are already saying that they will require an additional 5% in equity from the owner to make up the 10% retainage traditionally withheld by owners).

Although the consequences (intended or otherwise) of this new statute for the real estate lending, development and construction industries in Massachusetts remain to be seen over the coming months and years, they are likely to include:

  • Owners requiring retainage to be withheld on components of the contract price that previously may not have been subject to retainage (e.g., contractor’s fee, general conditions); exercising much greater control over a contractor’s use of contingency funds; requiring bonds from prime contractors and subs more regularly; and policing variations from the project schedule and/or the contract documents more strictly earlier in the project; and

  • Owners being much more selective in the choice of prime contractors and subs, tending towards repeat relationships, leading to greater consolidation within the industry and raising the barriers to entry by new companies.

There is already discussion underway about efforts to amend, limit or repeal this statute, so this will be something to watch for in 2015.

© 2014 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
ARTICLE BY

Peter Friedenberg
OF
Sherin and Lodgen LLP

Miami Building Permits: Use of Phased Permits on the Rise

Bilzin_logo300 dpi

As cranes tower over Miami in the post-recession development upswing, developers are once again using phased permits to expedite construction while awaiting approval for building permits. Section 105.13 of the Florida Building Code authorizes the issuance and use of phased permits throughout the state at the discretion of building officials. Developers in Miami and Miami Beach are actively using this option. In the cities of Miami and Miami Beach, approval from the Department of Environmental Resources Management as well as an agreement/verification from Water and Sewer is now needed to receive a phased permit. This is a new element that was not originally required. Applicants should be prepared to provide this documentation as part of their phased permit application.

cranes Given the fact that the phased permit is a permit that is issued pending (not in lieu of) an official building permit, the holder of the phased permit proceeds at his or her own risk when beginning construction upon receipt of the phased permit. Thus, applicants are required to execute a Hold Harmless letter/form reflecting that they understand the risk and relieve the municipality of all liability resulting from or in connection with the phased permit. Applications proceed with the understanding that it is possible that in order to receive the official building permit, portions or all of the construction that has been completed under the phased permit would need to be modified or removed. Applicants must cautiously weigh the risks when deciding to begin major construction using a phased permit.

As development rebounds in South Florida, the use of phased permitting is allowing projects to stay on course and meet proposed construction deadlines. By allowing construction to proceed via phased permits, developers do not have to be handicapped by the delays that may arise from complicated and bureaucratic permitting processes and can sooner capitalize on the market demand for their projects.

Read more about the procedures for phased permits in the City of Miami and the phased permits in the City of Miami Beach.

ARTICLE BY

Wendy Francois
Javier F. Avino
A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo
 
OF
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

Comment Period Almost Over for OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Crystalline Silica Proposal

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

In August 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced a proposed rule regarding workplace exposure to crystalline silica. The proposal includes two separate standards – one for general industry and maritime employment, and one for construction.

If you do not know what crystalline silica is, chances are you are not in an industry that has exposure to it. Crystalline silica is minute, respirable particles that are generated from operations involving stone, rock, concrete, brick, block, mortar and industrial sand. Workers who encounter these materials are in a broad range of industries, including mining, oil and gas, foundries, masonries, pottery manufacturing, and sand blasting.

OSHA’s proposal seeks to limit routine occupational exposure to the so-called “deadly dust.” Inhalation of the particles causes silicosis, an incurable lung disease. Workers are also at risk for developing lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease.  OSHA estimates that its proposal will save 700 lives each year and prevent 1,600 cases of silicosis annually. There are already established permissible exposure limits (“PEL”) for silica, but they were established in 1971 – new research reflects that more stringent standards are needed. The new PEL, 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, would apply to all the regulated industries (though OSHA plans to create distinct standards for the construction industry). In addition to the PEL, the rule also calls for medical surveillance, worker training, recordkeeping, and exposure assessments.

Initially, the deadline to submit written comments and testimony to OSHA was December 11, 2013. That deadline, however, was extended by an additional 47 days to allow for additional public input. The new cut-off is January 27, 2014. Public hearings on the issue are scheduled to begin in March and will likely continue for several weeks due to the significant impact the rule will have on so many industries. Millions of American workers encounter crystalline silica in their day-to-day work operations.

The proposal will directly affect many small businesses and OSHA is specifically interested in receiving input from these entities. Be sure to check back on Wednesday with some tips on what employers can do now to protect workers (and potentially limit their liability for future silica-related claims).

Article by:

Cynthia L. Effinger

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC