Volume 6 - Number 20 | May 19, 2008 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 6 - Number 20 | May 19, 2008

Volume 6 - Number 20 | May 19, 2008

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 6-20: By most standards, two years of inactivity on a project would be enough for an owner to conclude that the contractor has walked off the job. If the contractor hasn’t received payment for any of its work, however, the contractor could reasonably think that the owner has defaulted. What remains in this dispute, as presented in this week’s first case, is what date to put on the mechanic’s lien. Does the date coincide with the beginning of the project or when the contractor returns to finish the work two years later? Here, the answer hinges on a 120-day mechanic’s lien filing deadline.

Also this week, we present a bid protest decision in which the GAO awards the costs for a bid protest to the protester, despite the fact that it was only successful in part of its protest. And, a state appeals court addresses the ramifications of a no-damage-for-delay clause in a subcontract for a roadway project.

LIEN RIGHTS LOST BECAUSE CONTRACTOR ABANDONED PROJECT: A mechanic’s lien cannot refer back to the contract’s beginning if two years of inactivity elapse between the major performance of the work and the project’s completion.

GAO ADDRESSES ALLOCATION OF BID PROTEST COSTS: A rejected bidder adds up the costs of its partially successful bid protest and convinces the GAO to award reimbursement for the entire protest, not just the one issue that was successful.

COLORADO RECOGNIZES NO-DAMAGE-FOR-DELAY CLAUSES AND EXCEPTION: A Colorado court sets a precedent in a no-damage-for-delay clause dispute.