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.

Subscribers: click here for the full story

Non-Subscribers: click here to subscribe