Photo of Bob Gallagher

Bob Gallagher

Subscribe to Bob Gallagher's Posts

Bob Gallagher has represented construction clients on projects up to $4.5 billion and in dispute proceedings across 31 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, South America, the Middle East, Europe, and Australia.

Follow: Read more about Bob GallagherRobert's Linkedin Profile

Introduction

America’s water infrastructure has long faced a critical need for funding and modernization. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there is a $105 billion funding gap for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projected over the next two decades.[1] The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) addresses this issue head-on, allocating $55 billion to water infrastructure — the largest federal investment of its kind in the nation’s history.[2] However, the significance of the IIJA extends beyond its substantial funding. It distinguishes itself through a deliberate emphasis on efficiency, innovation, and collaboration in project delivery — a strategic focus that aligns seamlessly with the core principles driving successful public-private partnerships (P3s). As a result, the IIJA emerges as a catalyst, paving the way for the increased use of P3s in transforming America’s water infrastructure. This convergence of the IIJA’s ambitious objectives with the inherent advantages of P3s presents an extraordinary opportunity to revitalize our water systems, creating infrastructure that is resilient, sustainable, and capable of meeting future challenges.…

Continue Reading The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: A Pivotal Moment for Water Public-Private Partnerships in the United States

The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is poised to change how the United States views and implements public-private partnerships (P3s). At a high level, the IIJA encourages public entities to consider P3s and incentivizes private entities to engage in the P3 market by dismantling roadblocks that have prevented the widespread adoption of P3s in the U.S. — including by removing government red-tape, increasing the availability of federal funding, and delivering much needed technical expertise and guidance to successfully execute P3s. In this article, the first in a series, we explore (1) the doubling of private activity bonds, (2) a P3 technical assistance program for government agencies, (3) TIFIA driven value-for-money analyses, (4) the streamlining of important environmental reviews, and (5) the creation of a government reporting feedback loop on P3 projects.…

Continue Reading Federal Infrastructure Bill Paves the Way Toward More Transportation Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the construction industry, and many countries continue to implement new or more stringent restrictions on entry into their borders. Those travel restrictions can impact any company with cross-border supply chains or employee travel. This article addresses some of the travel restrictions in place in the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union (EU); exceptions to those requirements; and some best practices when navigating across borders.
Continue Reading COVID-19 and Border Crossings: Considerations and Best Practices for Global Constructors and Suppliers Crossing US, Canadian, and European Borders

The Army Corps of Engineers denied a construction permit for Alaska’s Pebble Mine project to proceed in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA).[1] Excavation of Pebble Mine — a sprawling depository of gold, copper, and molybdenum — would discharge fill material and dredge into U.S. waterways.

The project’s developers applied for a permit under the CWA, requiring the Army Corps to assess the project’s potential impact on nearby bodies of water. When project-produced dredge and fill threaten unavoidable adverse impacts on waterways, projects may not proceed without appropriate mitigation measures.
Continue Reading Another Major Project Halted Under the Clean Water Act

Gov. Wolf’s businesses closure orders and the business waiver process recently came under fire from the Western District of Pennsylvania Federal Court and the Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale. Gov. Wolf’s prior orders forced nearly all activities of the construction industry to cease in-person operations.
Continue Reading Governor Wolf’s Life-Sustaining Business Orders and Waiver Process Under Fire

Updated October 27, 2020

On August 6, President Trump issued an executive order banning WeChat, a Chinese app developed by parent company Tencent Holdings Ltd. that combines the capabilities of other social media, ride sharing, and payment apps. The ban could potentially affect all forms of businesses, including global construction, manufacturers, and equipment suppliers performing business in China and the U.S. WeChat, with its over one billion users, is indispensable to some businesses, especially to those in China because mobile payment apps like WeChat reign supreme over other payment forms, and WeChat is now used as a primary means to communicate.
Continue Reading The WeChat Ban: Where We Are Now and How May It Impact International Construction, Manufacturers, and Equipment Suppliers

Much has been written about whether and how COVID-19 qualifies as a force majeure event, and some additional information can be found here. But typical force majeure provisions entitle contractors to only schedule relief. While force majeure clauses may limit exposure to liquidated or consequential damages for delays, contractors who incur increased costs resulting from COVID-19 related delays should carefully evaluate the entirety of their contractual rights to not only an extension of time, but also recover prolongation costs. To assist in this endeavor, this article looks beyond force majeure to other potentially relevant contractual provisions. Potential remedies under the various contractual clauses discussed below will depend on the specific contractual language and project-specific facts.
Continue Reading COVID-19 and the Construction Industry: Looking Beyond Force Majeure to Recover Time and Costs for Delay

Bribery and corruption have long plagued the construction industry, particularly in emerging markets in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. Large contracts often trickle down through layers of subcontractors and consultants, presenting opportunities for corruption at each level. The risk is enhanced in certain foreign jurisdictions where public officials may expect payment in exchange for state-issued licenses or government contracts.

…
Continue Reading Enhanced Anti-Corruption Scrutiny in Construction Industry

Fulton County v. Soco Contracting Company, Inc., 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 568 (Ga. Ct. App., November 15, 2017) 

Fulton County contracted with SOCO Construction Company (“SOCO”) to build a cultural center near the Fulton County Airport.  The contract specified that the contract sum and the contract time could only be changed according to County procedure, which required “a written, bilateral agreement (Modification) between the County … and the contractor.”

Adverse weather conditions, design delays, change order requests, and a federal government shutdown allegedly delayed the project.  Despite the County’s program manager listing more than 30 change orders in the project’s change order evaluation log, the County never issued any written change orders, including any change orders extending the contract time to account for the delays.  The County also withheld payment from SOCO.

SOCO sued the County for breach of contract and bad faith performance of contract, and it sought attorney fees and injunctive relief.…

Continue Reading Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Sovereign Immunity Shields County From Contractor’s Claims Based Upon Unwritten Change Orders

WTE-S&S AG Enters., LLC v. GHD, Inc., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2343 (Bankr. N. D. Ill. August 18, 2017) 

This breach of contract dispute arises out of a contract to design and build a cow-manure digester on a farm in Wisconsin.  The digester vessel designed and constructed by Defendant, DVO, Inc. (formerly known as GHD, Inc.), consisted of a 300-foot long tank with two side-by-side chambers which were each 35 feet wide.  A thick concrete cover sat atop the vessel to prevent “free oxygen” from entering the digester.  A center wall ran the length of the vessel, separating the two chambers and also serving as the interior load-bearing wall.

The Debtor/owner commenced this action against DVO, contending, among other things, that the interior center wall footing of the vessel was defectively designed in that it was undersized and not compliant with the applicable code for waste-storage facilities.  Debtor’s expert testified that the undersized and overstressed wall footings could lead to settlement of the vessel and cracks in the foundation, which would compromise its structural integrity.  Debtor’s expert further testified that to properly support the vessel weight, the currently constructed three-foot wall footing needed to be three-and-a-half to four foot wide.

The court agreed that DVO’s design was defective and constituted a breach of the contract because it failed to comply with the applicable code.  However, applying the “economic waste” doctrine, the court denied Debtor’s request for damages of $988,475 to replace the entire vessel or, in the alternative, $655,000 to shut down and clean out the vessel to check for cracks or settlement issues.…

Continue Reading Bankruptcy Court Holds That “Economic Waste” Doctrine, as Adopted in Wisconsin, Prevented Owner From Recovering Costs to Repair Defectively Designed Digester and Awards No Damages, Even Though the Digester Was Not Designed to the Applicable Code