Subcontract

Subscribe to Subcontract via RSS

Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Design Build Contracting Corp.
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2861 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 2008)
The Fourth Circuit held that where a condition precedent to arbitration, in this case voluntary mediation, was not fulfilled, a party to a contract had no right to force arbitration of the…

City of Lonsdale v. NewMech Companies, Inc.
2008 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 31 (Minn. App. 2008)
The City of Lonsdale solicited sealed bids for construction of a wastewater-treatment plant. According to the terms of the bid form, each bidder submitting a bid form:
“Propose[d] and agree[d], if [the] Bid is accepted, to enter into an Agreement with City in the form included in the Bidding Documents to perform all Work as specified or indicated in the Bidding Documents for the prices and within the times indicated in the Bid and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Bidding Documents.”

WM Hotel Group, LLC v. Pride Construction, Inc.
2008 R.I.Super.LEXIS 9 (2008)
WM Hotel, owner of the Hampton Inn & Suites, located in Middletown, R.I. initiated a lawsuit against Pride Construction, the general contractor for the construction of its hotel, Antcil Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors, Inc., the plumbing subcontractor that installed the hotel bathtubs and Travelers, Antcil’s insurer under a CGL policy.
Antcil installed the tubs, tested them for leaks, placed “tub protectors” in each and transferred control of them to Pride. The tubs began evidencing cracking, rust, and sagging. WM Hotel asserted that 93 of the 95 tubs were defective as manufactured and/or installed and that it was Antcil’s faulty installation that resulted in the damage to the tubs. Forensic testing and analysis indicated that a styrofoam sound deadening pad was missing from beneath the tubs, and that the omission could have contributed to deflection of the bathing surface. Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the CGL policy issued on behalf of Antcil did not provide coverage for the damage incurred. Travelers asserted that the damages were not the result of an “occurrence” as defined in the policy and that exclusionary language in the policy precluded coverage.

C&I Steel, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
70 Mass. App. Ct. 653, 2007 Mass. App. LEXIS (App. Ct. Nov. 6, 2007)
The town of Westford awarded Peabody Construction Company, Inc. (“Peabody”) a contract for construction of a middle school. The project required a payment bond which Peabody obtained from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”) for the full value of the contract. Peabody, as principal, and Travelers, as surety, jointly and severally bound themselves “to [Westford] to pay for labor, materials and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the [c]onstruction [c]ontract.” The bond set forth that the construction contract incorporated the agreement between Westford and Peabody, including all the contract documents and changes thereto.

United States ex rel E & H Steel Corp. v. C. Pyramid Enterprises, Inc
Civil Action No. 06-4209, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27347 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in which the primary question was whether a particular project participant, responsible for supplying structural steel, was a “subcontractor” for purposes of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3131, et seq. Reviewing the Supreme Court interpretations and the intent of the Miller Act, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision and held that the project participant at issue was a “subcontractor” under the Miller Act, because it had a substantial and important relationship with the prime contractor. Accordingly, a fabricator which had contracted to furnish steel to it could sue on the bond.

Caddell Construction Co., Inc. v. United States
2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 285, No. 04-461C, (September 7, 2007)
The United States District Court of Federal Claims held that the design deficiencies alleged by the plaintiff contractor did not rise to the level of a breach of the implied warranty set forth under the Spearin Doctrine.
Plaintiff Caddell Construction Co. (“Plaintiff”) entered into a contract with the Department of Veteran Affairs (the “Government”) to modernize and strengthen the VA Medical center in Memphis, Tennessee. Plaintiff claimed on behalf of its steel fabrication subcontractor, Steel Service Corporation (“SSC”), that the Government provided structural steel drawings that contained conflicts, errors, omissions, and/or inadequate details which resulted in delay and additional costs to SSC.

National American Insurance Company v. United States
No. 2007-5016, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20058 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2007)
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the lower court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment. The Court held that a payment bond surety is equitably subrogated to the rights of the contractor whose debt it discharges, and thus can pursue a claim directly against the government.
The case arose out of a contract between Innovative PBX Services, Inc. (“Contractor”) and the United States Small Business Administration (the “government”) for the replacement of a telephone system at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The Contractor subcontracted part of the work to Nortel Communications Systems, Inc. (“Subcontractor”). As required by the Miller Act, the Contractor executed payment and performance bonds in favor of the government with National American Insurance Company (“Surety”) as the surety. After completion of the contract work, the Subcontractor notified the Surety that it was owed approximately $675,000 for labor and materials that the Contractor had failed to pay for. The Subcontractor then instituted a Miller Act claim under the payment bond against the Surety, which the Surety settled. The Surety also notified the government that no addition payments should be made to the Contractor in light of the Miller Act claim and requested that all remaining contract funds be held for the Surety’s benefit. The government, however, did not follow the Surety’s request and made its final contract payment to the Contractor. As a result, the Surety filed a complaint against he government seeking damages of $280,000.

Neshaminy Constructors, Inc. v. Concrete Building Systems, Inc.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69197, Civil Action No. 06-1489 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania conducted a bench trial in which the primary question was whether a contract had been formed between a contractor and subcontractor in connection with a project for which the contractor submitted a bid proposal utilizing, in part, the subcontractor’s bid proposal for calculating the total price for the work. Relying on Pennsylvania common law, the Eastern District held that use of a subcontractor’s bid, by a general contractor in the submission of its own bid to the owner, in and of itself is not sufficient to create a binding contract.

Pa. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs
2007 Pa. LEXIS 2175 (Oct. 17, 2007)
On October 17, 2007 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a lower court decision misinterpreted the state’s Procurement Code and that the Commonwealth Department of General Services (DGS) should be allowed to use a sealed proposal process to procure construction contracts.
In April, 2005, DGS initiated the use of the request for proposal (RFP) process to award construction contracts on larger projects (exceeding $5 million). In October 2005, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a trade association of contractors and subcontractors, filed suit in the Commonwealth Court to enjoin DGS from using the RFP process for construction contracts, asserting that by statute construction work could only be awarded by competitive bidding requiring an award to the lowest competitive bidder. The Commonwealth Court held that the Procurement Code does not extend the RFP process to construction contracts, and, accordingly, enjoined DGS from utilizing the competitive sealed proposal bidding/RFP process on any future construction project under its policy determination. DGS appealed the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Nat’l Amusements, Inc.,
70 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 873 N.E.3d 754 (Sept. 18, 2007)
National Amusements, Inc., entered into a contract with Old Colony Construction Corporation for the construction of National’s cinema theater complex. Old Colony subsequently entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff, Central Ceilings, Inc., for a portion of the construction of the Project. Although delays made meeting the original completion date next to impossible, National stressed to Central its strong desire to have the theatre complex open for the Labor Day weekend. In response, Central made it clear to National that meeting such an aggressive completion date would require it to accelerate the work schedule. In addition, since Old Colony was experiencing cash flow problems and owed Central a substantial sum of money for work already completed, Central demanded assurances from National that it would be paid for its work before it would continue with the accelerated work on the Project. As a result, one of National’s agents orally agreed to pay Old Colony’s obligations to Central. Thereafter, Central completed its work and achieved substantial completion by August 25.