Insights
Publications

California Counties Now Less At Risk On Public Works Construction

10/10/2013 Articles

Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 328, which permits counties to enter Construction Manager At Risk ([email protected]) agreements for construction of projects over $1 million. Counties now join the University of California, the California State University System, the Administrative Office of the Courts and other public entities which already have enabling legislation permitting them to enter [email protected] agreements.

[email protected] has become a popular project delivery method in the public sector as an alternative to the design-bid-build method, which is generally considered more likely to result in contractor claims. Under the [email protected] method, a contractor becomes involved in design development, typically after the schematic design is completed, and assists the designer develop the construction documents. The contractor’s construction experience should result in a better design and a lower cost of construction. The contractor then acts as a construction manager on behalf of the owner to manage and cause the trade contractors to perform.

Sometimes the owner enters into contracts with the trade contractors. This is risky for the owner because it may have direct liability to one or more of those trade contractors for the construction manager’s failure to manage them. Sometimes the construction manager contracts with the trade contractors, which is better for the owner. Who contracts with the trade contractors determines whether the construction manager or the owner is truly “at risk.” The construction manager may also be “at risk” if it guarantees the cost of construction or the schedule.

In the absence of enabling legislation such as SB 328, there are risks to [email protected] contracting for both owners and construction managers on public projects. As a general matter, many public owners are required to competitively bid construction contracts and award them to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. However, public owners are not required to award design and construction management agreements to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. They can award based upon an assessment of best value, with price being one of the considerations. Risk arises when a [email protected] agreement is entered without statutory authority.

In 1970 the City of Inglewood and Los Angeles County created a joint powers authority to develop a civic center that would include both city and county buildings. The joint powers authority awarded a construction management contract to Swinerton & Walberg Co. (Swinerton) Swinerton was not the lowest bidder but was considered more qualified than the lowest bidder. Under the terms of the contract, Swinerton guaranteed the total cost of construction. The low bidder, which was not found to be non-responsible, successfully enjoined the joint powers authority from proceeding with Swinerton’s agreement.

In 1972 the California Supreme Court ruled in City of Inglewood – L.A. County Civic Center Authority v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.3d 861 (1972) that a construction manager contract that guarantees the total price of a project based on subcontractor bids “is too closely akin to traditional lump sum general construction contracting” to be exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Since that time, any public entity required to competitively bid construction contracts ran a substantial risk if it entered a [email protected] agreement. It risked having its project enjoined and having the [email protected] agreement ruled void. The [email protected] risked having to disgorge all funds paid to it by the public owner.

With the enactment of SB 328, California counties and construction managers entering [email protected] agreements with them can now avoid this risk and enjoy the benefits of [email protected] However, they must carefully allocate between themselves the risk of liability to the trade contractors.

Firm Highlights

Publication

3 Lessons For Calif. Insureds From Late-Notice Rule Decision

In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company,[1] the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule[2] is a fundamental public policy of California...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More
Event

CalCPA: Wine Industry Conference

Lauren Gilbreth will present the session "Succession Planning" at the CalCPA - Wine Industry Conference. The ever dynamic wine industry is fraught with complicated tax, labor and accounting issues. Please join us as we...

Read More
News

Ninth Circuit Upholds Data Miner's Injunction Against LinkedIn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with data analytics company hiQ Labs, Inc. and upheld an injunction barring LinkedIn from blocking it from accessing information made publicly available by the professional networking site’s users...

Read More
Event

Complex Civil Litigation Symposium

Doug Dexter is a member of the planning committee for the 2019 Complex Civil Litigation Symposium.

Read More
Publication

Changing Climate, Changing Laws: Addressing CEQA’s New Wildfire Risk Requirements in Project Development

Wildfires pose an increasingly serious threat to the public and environment in California. So it should be no surprise that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended Appendix G of California Environmental...

Read More
News

40 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

SAN FRANCISCO, July 8, 2019: Forty Farella Braun + Martel attorneys across practice areas were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2019. Farella attorneys...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Advises on Sale of 2,300-Acre Foote Ranch

Farella Braun + Martel represented a trust that owned 50% of the iconic 2,300-acre Foote Ranch in Sonoma, California in disputes with the ranch’s co-owners and in the subsequent $23.7 million sale of the...

Read More
Publication

California Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies That the Notice-Prejudice Rule Is a Fundamental Public Policy That May Override Choice of Law Provisions

In  Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company , the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule [1]  is a fundamental public policy...

Read More
Publication

Accessory Dwelling Units Authorized in New Construction

New legislation passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 18 now authorizes the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in new construction projects for single-family homes and multi-family buildings. The City...

Read More