What happened to the plain white business card with a name and number clearly printed on the front?
How quickly time passes – it’s already been over five years since we had our “new” web site designed. At this point, I struggle to even remember what our old site looked like, let alone how it performed. However simple it may have been, it certainly served the purpose of the time.
Although we’ve have a good run with the current site, it’s once again time for not only a refreshed look, but upgrade in performance. I’ve always tried to exceed expectations not only in the field with quality and schedule, but also in the office with the level of detail and accuracy we provide for any given program. The new site is a great new tool as we move into the next generation of the custom home market.
With the new site I’ve put more emphasis on our Owner Representation services as well as some extensive upgrades to the back end Client interface system. With the fallout from the recession, we’ve quickly come to realize our clients have a whole new set of expectations on how their investment is being handled and the level of access they’ve come to expect on all aspects of the project. We couldn’t think of any better way to handle their needs than with some major manager/owner interface updates as well as a clear picture as to the different programs we offer.
Five years, 60 custom homes, several large commercial structures, and a severely thinning head of hair later; I’m excited to release the latest version of the site. Take a look – I’m excited to hear your comments.
From one of my favorite email blogs – The Construction Claims Advisor.
A fixed-price construction contract is usually just that. Sometimes, however, prices for materials or commodities such as asphalt or fuel are stipulated in the bid documents, with payment to the contractor adjusted to reflect the actual costs indicated in periodic published indexes.
From a project owner’s point of view, a price adjustment clause promotes accurate bidding. Bidders are not forced, or allowed, to speculate on future costs. There is no need for bidders to carry large contingencies as protection against volatile swings in cost. And of course for the successful bidder these features reduce the risk and uncertainty of contract performance.
In order for price adjustment clauses to work fairly and effectively, however, they must tie adjustments to the contractor’s real costs. The Mississippi Supreme Court recently struck a provision from a state highway contract because it froze “actual” costs at the contract completion deadline. By failing to account for subsequent contractor costs, the clause violated the statute authorizing the use of price adjustment clauses.
Is the fixed price contract the best contract for both parties?
The concept of “superior knowledge” or “superior information” is unique to construction contracting. Contract law in general holds a party responsible for intentionally withholding significant information in order to mislead the other party. This is usually characterized as “fraudulent misrepresentation” or “fraudulent inducement.” With construction contracting, a project owner may be liable to a contractor for failing to disclose significant information even though the nondisclosure was not intentional or fraudulent.
The California Supreme Court recently issued an important decision on nondisclosure of superior information by public project owners. If a public project owner (1) possesses information which will affect the contractor’s bid price or performance cost; (2) knows the contractor does not possess that information; and (3) includes nothing in the contract documents which would cause the contractor to inquire about the information; then (4) the owner can be liable for nondisclosure of the information for any reason. No intent is required.
A dissenting opinion in the California case argued that public project owners, and the taxpayers, should not be exposed to liability for accidental or unintentional nondisclosure of information. The dissent said the majority’s ruling absolved contractors of any responsibility for independently investigating contract performance conditions and would foster extensive claims litigation.
From the Construction Advisor
Change order limitations are sometimes imposed on public works contracts by statute, regulation or the contract itself. The underlying policy is to protect the project budget and the integrity of the public procurement process by limiting the expansion of the contractual scope of work. A limitation typically states that if the estimated cost of a change order exceeds a certain percentage of the original contract price, the additional work must be put out to bid.
Change order limitations can lead to devious tactics, however. In a recent California case a public project owner and its construction manager tried to circumvent a ten percent limit in a site work contract in order to avoid the delay of competitive bidding. New grading work was to be added to the general building contract and the building contractor would sub the work to the site contractor.
The project owner never amended the building contract and the building contractor wouldn’t pay the site contractor for the “subcontracted” work. The owner and CM settled with the site contractor. But when the site contractor sued the building contractor, the purported subcontract was ruled an unenforceable sham.
From the Construction Advisor
A key ingredient of the competitive bidding process is transparency. Everyone has access to the required scope of work and the budget available to procure that work. Once sealed bids are opened, they become public information. When a bid is accepted for contract award, grounds for selection are stated on the record.
Transparency keeps the competitive bidding process honest. It also maintains public confidence in the integrity of the system. When procurement authorities refuse to operate in the open, it should be cause for concern.
In a recent California case, a public project owner provided a copy of the low bid to the second low bidder immediately after bid opening, enabling the second low bidder to get the low bid rejected. The low bidder asked to see the second low bidder’s submittal. The owner stalled. The low bidder was eventually provided with the documents, but only after its petition for injunctive relief had been denied. The low bidder then discovered that the second low bidder had the same problem of which it had complained regarding the low bidder. A court called this “favoritism most foul” on the part of the public project owner.
What is your experience regarding transparency in the public or private bidding process? Are decisions well documented and the documents available to all? Or, is information parsed out on a “need to know” basis? For those of you working for procurement authorities, what transparency mechanisms are in place to maintain both the appearance and substance of even competition?
From the Construction Advisor https://constructionadvisortoday.com
