|
Volume 5 - Number 16 | April 16, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
This week's Advisor looks at a differing site conditions issue, contractor performance ratings and a contractor surety issue. Project owners sometimes provide very specific information regarding subsurface conditions in order to encourage tight bidding, free of large contingencies. But the owners then attempt to protect themselves by disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of that very same information. Can an owner have it both ways? A California court answered in the negative.
In another case, a competitor for a federal construction contract complained that it had received a negative past performance rating based on inaccurate information provided by prior customers. But the competitor's recourse was limited. And the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that a contractor's workers' compensation insurer could not recover an unpaid insurance premium from the contractor's payment surety. The insurance contract was not the type of payment obligation guaranteed by the bond.
|
|
SITE CONDITION DISCLAIMER NOT ENFORCED
When conflicting contract language blurs the line of responsibility for a differing site condition on a public project, a public works statute, not the contract disclaimer, decides the case.
|
|
CONTRACTOR AWARDED $27.1 MILLION IN WRONGFUL
A U.S. district court has awarded a little more than $27 million in damages and interest to Ground Improvement Techniques Inc. (GIT) in its wrongful termination suit against Morrison-Knudsen Corp.
|
|
BRIEFLY NOTED
Here’s a look at recent happenings in the industry.
|
|
