Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio
2005 Pa. LEXIS 99 (Pa. January 19, 2005)
The East Penn School District entered into a contract with The Architectural Studio (“TAS”), pursuant to which TAS agreed to prepare plans, drawings and specifications (collectively, “Design Documents”) for the construction of a new school. The Design Documents were submitted to contractors for the purpose of preparing bids to perform the general construction of the school. Bilt-Rite submitted a bid for the general construction work, and was awarded the contract as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. The contract between Bilt-Rite and the School District specifically referred to and incorporated by reference, TAS’s Design Documents.
Contracts
VA Board of Contract Appeals Permits Application of “Measured Mile” Approach for Determining Inefficiencies Using Similar But Non-Identical Tasks as Standard of Comparison
In re P.J. Dick, Inc.
2002 VA BCA LEXIS 2; 2002-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P31,732 (9/27/01)
The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) awarded P.J. Dick, Inc. (“PJD”) a contract for the construction of a clinical addition to the Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan (the “Contract”). To complete its work under the Contract, PJD entered into a subcontract with Kent Electric Services (“KES”) pursuant to which KES agreed to perform all electrical work for the project for labor and material costs plus a $10,000 per month management fee.
Pennsylvania Federal District Court Holds That Obligee On Performance Bond May Not Maintain Bad Faith Claim Against Surety
The Norwood Company v. RLI Insurance Company
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5560 (E.D. Pa. 2002)
Pennsylvania Court Holds That Non-Compliance with Requirements of Instructions to Bidders Does Not Automatically Render Bid Incapable of Acceptance
Gaeta v. Ridley School District
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 788 A.2d 363; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 132( January 25, 2002)
Ridley School District invited bids for various prime contracts for the construction of a new high school. IBE Contracting, Inc. submitted a bid for the “Aluminum Entrances and Storefronts Construction”. In its bid package, IBE submitted a bid bond from a surety with a Best Rating of “B”. The Instructions to Bidders, however, required that, with respect to the bid bond, the “Surety Company shall be licensed. . .with a minimum Best Rating of A- or better.” After it was determined that IBE was the lowest bidder, the School District contacted IBE and requested that IBE submit a bid bond from a surety with the required Best Rating. IBE submitted a compliant bid bond and the School District awarded IBE the contract.
Florida Bankruptcy Court Holds Completing Surety Has No Claim on Funds Contractor Earned Before Default
In re: Steve A. Clapper & Assoc. of Fla.,
265 B.R. 460 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001)
Capital Indemnity Corporation (“Capital”) was the surety of Steve A. Clapper & Associates of Florida (“Clapper”) on a project for Manatee County. Clapper submitted a payment application to Manatee County on September 30, 1999, seeking payment of $95,702.04 for work performed, which Manatee County accepted. On October 21, 1999, Manatee County terminated Clapper for default, and Capital assumed performance of the Project in accordance with the surety bonds.
Eleventh Circuit Strictly Construes Notice and Final Payment Provisions of Subcontract
Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., Inc.
No. 00-10784, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24235 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2001)
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. (“Eby”) was the prime contractor on a Georgia prison construction project. Eby entered into subcontract with Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (“Associated”) pursuant to which Associated agreed to perform the mechanical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and plumbing work for the project.
Pennsylvania Court Holds Payment Bond Claim Is Barred By Prompt Payment Act Defense
Trumbull Corp. v. Boss Constr., Inc. et al.
768 A.2d 369 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001)
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDot”) entered into a contract with A&L, Inc. (“A&L”) pursuant to which A&L agreed to serve as general contractor for a road resurfacing project. A&L obtained a labor and material payment bond from Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”). A&L also retained Boss Construction, Inc. (“Boss”) to serve as subcontractor for a portion of the work.
Delaware Court Holds Completing Surety’s Right of Equitable Subrogation Arises Before Completion of Contract
Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Colonial Sch. Dist. et. al.
No. 18167, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 31 (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2001)
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) served as surety of contractor Healy Management Services, Inc. (“Healy”) on a project for the Colonial School District (“Colonial”). Traveler’s also served as surety of Healy on a project for Electra Arms Senior Associates, L.P. (“Electra Arms”). Casey Electric, Inc. (“Casey”) and I.D. Griffith, Inc. (“Griffith”) were subcontractors of Healy on separate unbonded projects, unrelated to the projects which were bonded by Travelers.
New Jersey Court Rules That Invalidity of Architect’s Certification Does Not Preclude Owner From Terminating Contract for Material Breach
Ingrassia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Vernon Township Bd. of Educ.
No. A-3954-00T2F, 2001 N.J. Super. LEXIS 411 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2001)
Ingrassia Construction Co., Inc. (“Ingrassia”) entered into a contract with the Vernon Township Board of Education (“Board”) pursuant to which Ingrassia agreed to perform renovations of and additions to the Vernon Township High School. Ingrassia’s performance of its work scope was subject to several milestone dates. Despite this obligation, Ingrassia consistently failed to perform in accordance with the project schedule.
Pennsylvania Court Rules Successful Bidder Is Indispensable Party in Action to Enjoin Award of a Public Contract
Polydyne, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
No. 2454 C.D. 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 4, 2002)
The City of Philadelphia solicited bids for the provision of polymers for use by the City Water Department. Cytec Industries, Inc. (“Cytec”) was the successful bidder. Polydyne, Inc. (“Polydyne”), a disappointed bidder, filed a claim against the City of Philadelphia, seeking to enjoin the award to Cytec. After review of the merits, the trial court rejected the request for equitable relief.