In its latest offering, “CLC COVID-19 Claims and Disputes in Construction” the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) predicts that disputes related to COVID-19 are set to rise in 2021. While the optimist may hope that parties will continue to or aim to work collaboratively in order to find workable commercial solutions to claims arising from the global pandemic, the realist knows that such disputes are inevitable.
As of March 17, Boston halted all construction jobs in the city for two weeks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision has affected approximately 21.4 million square feet of new or renovated development across 97 projects. Other municipalities have implemented travel restrictions and shelter-in-place orders requiring individuals to stay at home except as necessary to provide certain essential business and government services. These domestic actions, coupled with tighter border controls and quarantines at the international level, will inevitably result in supply chain disruption and labor force shortages.
As COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the country, it will impact project performance. There are some important contract considerations that parties should keep in mind as they evaluate their response to project delays and closures, safety concerns, and vendor and workforce unavailability.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
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.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reminds us of the importance of using consistent terms when drafting a construction contract. In Clinton Assoc. For A Renewed Envt. Inc. v. Monadock Constr. Inc., defendants, pursuant to a contract (the “Contract”), agreed to provide architectural services and contract administration services to plaintiffs.[i] As part of their work, defendants prepared architectural plans, including specifications for the design system and choice of materials for the exterior masonry wall system. The Certificate of Substantial Completion was signed on March 29, 2006 and, at or about that time, the masonry walls began to fail, causing the walls to bulge and take on water. It was determined that the walls could not withstand the weather cycles to which they were exposed. Following Substantial Completion of the project, defendants worked extensively to cure the flaws in the masonry walls by, among other things, creating an alternate design and supervising the corrective work until August 18, 2008, when an Architect’s Certificate approving the repairs was issued.