Volume 7 - Number 13 | March 30, 2009 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 7 - Number 13 | March 30, 2009

Volume 7 - Number 13 | March 30, 2009

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 7-13: With the season’s opening pitch just a week away, major league baseball has supplanted March Madness in the minds of avid sports fans around the country. Because baseball is America’s favorite pastime and athletes are often revered as gods, society gives its favorite sluggers star treatment. It turns out that baseball stadiums can also get preferential treatment. Earlier this month, a divided state high court determined that Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners, was built “for the benefit of the people.” As such, it can receive the same statutory protections as other municipal buildings, which means that when the stadium’s fire protection coating system failed, the contractor was not protected by the state statute of limitations.

This week’s other two cases involve federal projects. In one, the subcontractor tried to pursue a price adjustment on a guaranteed maximum price contract for multiple change orders. Before the sub could pursue the claim in state court, the court ruled that it had to attempt contract-mandated sponsorship of the claim by the prime contractor in federal court. And in the other case, a contractor successfully disputes a contracting officer’s negative performance rating on an Air Force housing project.

PUBLIC SPORTS STADIUM OWNER GRANTED PREFERENTIAL STATUS: A state high court delivers preferential treatment to a baseball stadium with a construction defect. Because the municipal stadium is “for the benefit of the people,” the statute of limitations does not apply against the defect claim.

SUBCONTRACTOR BECAME BOUND TO FEDERAL DISPUTE PROCEDURE: A contract clause on a federal project requires a subcontractor to allow sponsorship of its claim in federal court before it can pursue it at the state level, rules a state appeals court.

ASBCA CAN RULE ON CHALLENGE TO NEGATIVE PERFORMANCE RATING: The ASBCA does not normally address negative performance rating disputes, but in the case of a military housing contractor, it makes an exception.