Is Your Business Prepared for New Tariffs on Aluminum and Steel Effective March 23?

On March 15, 2018, Presidential Proclamations 9704 (aluminum) and 9705 (steel) were published in the Federal Register Vol. 83. No. 51, at pages 11,619, etc., and pages 11,625, etc., respectively. As many are aware from continued coverage in the press, these proclamations are predicated upon national security concerns of the United States and the reports by the secretary of commerce under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862). Mexico and Canada are excluded from the assessments for now in consideration of ongoing negotiations relating to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

A 10 percent ad valorem duty has been set for aluminum articles as defined in the proclamation relating to that category of product and a 25 percent ad valorem duty has been set for steel articles as defined in the second of these proclamations.

The effective date for the application of these duty rates is midnight Eastern time on March 23, 2018, with respect to goods entered into or withdrawn from warehouses for consumption on or after that date and time. These rates are in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions and charges applicable to such imported products. Such additional charges may include items such as harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees and taxes, as appropriate.

Read the rest of this Alert on the Duane Morris website.

New York Governor Vetoes Public Contract Notice Bill Requiring Prejudice Before Forfeiture

One of our previous alerts provided notice of a bill passed by the New York State legislature requiring any contract awarded for public work include a provision that the contractor’s failure to give a notice within 180 days of the time prescribed in the contract would not invalidate any claim unless the public entity could demonstrate that it was materially prejudiced by the failure to provide notice. The new year, however, brought news from Albany when it was learned that the Governor, Andrew Cuomo, vetoed the bill with a message that included the following justification:

Appropriate notice provisions in public works contracts permit public owners to manage projects more efficiently. They also ensure that information is promptly provided to stakeholders if necessary to evaluate a change order or to resolve a problem on a project.

The Governor further commented that such a bill would fundamentally change well-established law and eliminate a public owner’s ability to mitigate project delays, adhere to plan work schedules and – quoting here – “would require public owners to accept and pay for work that was unnecessary and otherwise unauthorized.” Throwing more gas on the fire, the memo in support of the veto further stated that, “[m]oreover, litigating whether a public owner has been materially prejudiced will undoubtedly lead to increased claims and costs. For these reasons, I am therefore constrained to veto this bill.”
The Governor, evidently in an attempt to placate the trade groups and other organizations in support of the bill as well as the majority of the legislature, suggested that the Council of Contracting Agencies conduct a review of the notice and “forfeiture” – his words – provisions and to issue a report with their proposed recommendations in September of this year. The committee purpose apparently is an attempt to create uniform notice provisions throughout the state public contracts. However, it does not appear that uniformity in notice provisions was the prime driver of the proposed bill but, rather, their forfeiture aspects.

New York Governor Issues Executive Order to Close Wage Gap In State Contracts

On January 9, 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Executive Order 162 requiring state agencies and authorities to include a provision in state contracts “requiring contractors to agree to include detailed workforce utilization reports, in addition to the equal employment opportunity information” that is currently required to be included in such reports. The new reports must contain the job title, salary and other data, including the gender, race, and ethnicity of each employee working on the state contract. If the contractor cannot identify the particular workers on the state contract, the report must then contain the job titles and salary data “of each employee in the contractor’s entire workforce.”

Executive Order 162 applies to “all State contracts, agreements, and procurements issued and executed on or after June 1, 2017.” The new reporting requirement applies to both contractors and subcontractors. Contractors and subcontractors will be required to report the information on a quarterly basis for all prime contracts with a value in excess of $25,000. Contractors with contracts of more than $100,000 must report monthly.

The New York State Department of Economic Development will set forth procedure in which the information will be reported. The New York State Department of Labor will analyze the data and make recommendations to eliminate any detected wage disparity.

Upon signing the Order Governor Cuomo stated: “At these stormy times of instability and confusion, New York must serve as a safe harbor for the progressive principles and social justice that made America.”

Executive Order 162 can be found here.

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on Twitter) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and of the Duane Morris Cuba Business Group. Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on commercial litigation with a concentration in construction law, mechanics’ lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

New York Construction Industry Welcomes New Agreement On Extension Of 421-A Tax Abatement Program

Almost a year after it expired, the Building and Construction Trades Council and the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) reached an agreement to restore the 421-a tax exemption program. The New York State legislature still has to approve the agreement.

The new agreement will require developers to pay construction workers an average hourly wage of $60 (including wages and benefits) for projects in Manhattan with over 300 units south of 96th Street. In Brooklyn and Queens, the average hourly rate for workers, including wages and benefits, will be $45, and the wage and benefit obligations will apply to buildings located in Community Boards 1 and 2 within one mile of the nearest waterfront bulkhead. Projects with 50 percent or more affordable apartments are excluded from the wage and benefits requirement.

The agreement will also extend the maximum time developers will pay zero in property tax with the 421-a program from 21 years to 35 years. In exchange, affordable apartments with rent limitations must remain that way an additional 5 years to 40 years.

To assure compliance with the wage and benefits obligation of the program, developers will have to hire independent monitors to audit certified payrolls. The independent monitors will certify to the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development within 120 days of the receipt of the final Certificate of Occupancy that the compulsory wages and benefits have been paid.

Under the new agreement, developers may opt out of the 421-a wage and benefits requirement by entering into a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). If a developer chooses to enter into a PLA, the developer can still take advantage of all other elements of the 421-a program.

“The deal reached today between these parties provides more affordability for tenants and fairer wages for workers than under the original proposal. While I would prefer even more affordability in the 421-a program, this agreement marks a major step forward for New Yorkers,” Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement.

Rob Speyer, chair of REBNY, said: “We are pleased to have reached an agreement that will permit the production of new rental housing in New York City, including a substantial share of affordable units, while also ensuring good wages for construction workers.”

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on Twitter) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and of the Duane Morris Cuba Business Group. Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on commercial litigation with a concentration in construction law, mechanics’ lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

 

Duane Morris’ Charles Fastenberg to Present Lorman Educational Services Webinar on “Understanding New York Public Contracts and Procurement Regulations”

Duane Morris special counsel Charles Fastenberg of the firm’s New York office will present the Lorman Educational Services webinar, “Understanding New York Public Contracts and Procurement Regulations,” on Thursday, October 6, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern time). This webinar will provide insights for contractors and vendors so they are aware of unanticipated issues they may face when submitting bids for contracts.

For more information, please see the event posting on the Duane Morris website.

Duane Morris Attorneys Contribute to Construction & Engineering Law 2016

Charles Lewis and Jeffrey Hamera have authored a chapter on USA Construction Law in the recently published book, International Comparative Legal Guide to: Construction & Engineering Law 2016

Construction & Engineering Law covers common issues in construction and engineering laws and regulations – including making construction projects, supervising construction contracts, common issues on construction contracts and dispute resolution – in 29 jurisdictions.

The USA chapter includes the following sections: 1. Making Construction Projects; 2. Supervising Construction Contracts; 3. Common Issues on Construction Contracts; 4. Dispute Resolution.

To read the full text of the chapter online, please visit the ICLG website.

No-Prejudice Standard For Application Of Public Construction Contract Notices Now Required by New York

New York’s State Legislature has just passed a bill that would require a no-prejudice standard be applied in determining the application of notice provisions in public construction contracts. [1]

The bill amended current statutes [2] so as to require that unless the public owner can show they have suffered material prejudice as a result of a contractor’s (or/and subcontractor’s) failure to provide timely notice, rights are not barred. If the required notice is received more than 180 days after the time required under the contract, the burden to establish no-prejudice shifts to the contractor/subcontractor.

The Legislature Memo prepared to explain and support the bill referred to current notice provisions as one-sided and unfair “gotcha” provisions. The Memo further contended that some public owners were getting “free work” when contractors or subcontractors are barred from pursuing claims due to non-compliant notices.

Another significant element of the bill appears in the definitional section where it is provided that a “public owner’s actual knowledge of the events in question shall preclude a claim of material prejudice due to any lack of notice.” Some city and state contracts often specifically provide that actual knowledge cannot relieve contractors of the strict requirements of the notice provisions.

The bill will not become effective, however, until 180 days after it is signed by the Governor and becomes law and then only as to contracts awarded after that date.
The text of the bill is here .

1. The bill is A10136 and S6906 which passed on June 18, 2016.
2. The bill amends the Public Authorities Law, the General Municipal Law, the Public Service Law and the State Finance Law.

NYC Issues Crawler Crane Safety Requirements

Following another recent crane accident, New York City issued interim regulations addressing crawler crane safety requirements. These now include obligations to monitor forecasts and wind speed measurements, cease operations when wind speed thresholds are exceeded, generally 30 mph, with exceptions. There are additional requirements for crawler cranes with special configurations including prohibitions of use and the required presence on site of a licensed professional engineer. End of day records are required to be created by the operator. Notifications are required to be provided to the building department when twelve specified events regarding the use of a crawler crane occurs. The requirements can be found here http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/commissioner_order_crane_safety_req.pdf

Moody’s: U.S. Public Private Partnership Market (P3s) Set For Growth

According to a Moody’s Investors Service, the U.S. market for public-private partnerships (P3s) is equipped for growth and positioned to become one of the world’s largest. According to a new report from Moody’s important factors like availability of new state and federal resources, political support, the underlying legal structure to enforce P3 contracts and a strong capital market shape the necessary foundations for steady growth.

“State-level P3 activity has risen over the last three years, and nearly all P3 projects have been completed early or on time,” said John Medina, Moody’s VP – Senior Analyst “The need for more inter- and intra-government P3 best practice sharing remains key for the US P3 market’s long-term development compared to other markets where infrastructure development and funding may be more centrally aligned.”

The announcement of Moody’s Investors Service’s report can be seen here.

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on Twitter) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and focuses his practice on commercial litigation with a concentration in construction law, mechanics’ lien law and government procurement law.. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

Amendments to Rules of the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court Now in Effect

By Michael L. Chartan, partner in the Duane Morris LLP New York office

Effective December 1, 2015, the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York amended its rules. First, home improvement construction contract disputes (one to four family homes or individual units  in any residential building including cooperatives and condominiums ) will not be heard by the Commercial Division irrespective of the dispute involving $500,000 or more. Second, the Commercial Division will hear, pursuant to article 75 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules,  applications to stay or compel arbitration and to affirm or disaffirm awards and injunctive relief irrespective of the $500,000 monetary threshold provided the arbitration agreement requires the arbitration to be heard outside the United States.

The impact of these amendments will be to eliminate access to the Commercial Division for owners and contractors among others where the dispute involves a home improvement contract. At the same time, the Commercial Division will open its doors to arbitration proceedings conducted outside the United States thereby affording parties access to a specialized court in Manhattan. Parties are still free to agree in their arbitration agreements where issues related to arbitration will be heard. If the parties provide for these issues to be heard in New York County, then the Commercial Division will be available to them.

To read the full text of the Administrative Order, please visit the New York Courts website.

 

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress