Source: http://www.constructionlawtoolbox.com/tags/contractor/
Timestamp: 2016-07-26 10:11:16
Document Index: 19698643

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§85', '§85', '§85', '§85', '§11', '§31', '§15']

: Contractor : Construction Law Toolbox
Home > Contractor > Past Performance of Newly Formed Company
Posted on September 30, 2015 by Christopher Solop
Public agencies may use past performance to award a contract to the lowest and best bidder or reject a bid. Occasionally, construction companies may dissolve or form new companies. The reasons for a change in a company’s corporate structure may vary. However, the good and/or the bad may follow the newly formed company. This issue was addressed a number of years ago by the Mississippi Attorney General and the position explained as follows:
[I]f a bidder presenting a valid COR number is a company with which DFA/BOB has no past experience or past performance history, DFA/BOB may consider past experience with or past performance of the company from which the bidder originated, the bidder’s parent company, or the company with which the bidder merged, partnered, or changed names.
The Attorney General went on to state that a public agency can also reject an apparent low bidder "who submits a bid under the same COR number as its predecessor, predecessor in name, parent company, or merger/partner" where the public agency considers a poor past performer. [Link to AG Opinion No. 2003-649].
The important point to understand is that good and/or poor past performance follows the COR number which is held by the qualifying party.
Tags: COR, Certificate of Responsibility, Contractor, Contracts, Past Performance Email This
Comments Trackbacks Late Payment on Private Projects--When can a contractor recover late payment interest under Miss. Code Ann. §87-7-3?
Comments Trackbacks Does Mississippi need a statute voiding forum selection clauses?
Comments Trackbacks New Mississippi Lien Law, SB 2622-A Summary of the Vast Changes
The Legislature has completely rewritten the Mississippi lien law for commercial and residential projects. Senate Bill 2622 has now been sent to the Governor for his signature and provides lien rights to prime contractors, subcontractor and material suppliers. [Link to SB 2622] The new lien law will require those seeking to file a lien to comply carefully with strict notice and filing requirements. An error in complying with these requirements could lead to a “claim of lien” being ineffective or unenforceable. Some of the key points in the new lien law are: There are no lien rights if a contractor has provided a payment bond. (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-431)
"Claim of lien" must be filed in the chancery court of the county by a contractor, subcontractor or materialman where the property is located and within ninety (90) days of the last labor, services or materials provided. It must also contain certain language notifying the owner of its right to contest the lien and be sent to the owner and contractor within two (2) days after it is filed (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(b)). A subcontractor or material supplier not in privity with the contractor, or, if there is no contractor, with the owner, must provide notice within (30) days following the first delivery of labor, services, or materials as a condition precedent to filing a "claim of lien" (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-407(2)). The "claim of lien" can be amended at any time provided there is compliance with certain procedures (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(e)).
Comments Trackbacks Challenge to Arbitration Award Untimely
Posted on December 18, 2013 by Christopher Solop
Miss. Code Ann. §11-15-27. Because the challenging party complied with neither of these provisions, the Court of Appeals found the trial court had erred when it concluded the challenger's motion for vacation was timely.
Tags: Appeal, Arbitration, Arbitration Award, Arbitrator, Construction News, Contractor, Federal Arbitration Act, Mississippi Arbitration Act, Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act, Motion To Vacate
Comments Trackbacks Who can be a "Qualifying Party" for a Contractor's Certificate of Responsibility - Update
Comments Trackbacks No Certificate of Responsibility--No Payment for Work Performed
How would you feel if you performed thousands of dollars of work on a construction project and were then told you would not be paid anything? That is exactly what has happened with a recent decision from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. The Court’s opinion makes it absolutely clear that any contract entered into in violation of Miss. Code Ann. §31-3-15 is null and void. [click here for decision] This means if a contractor does not have a Certificate of Responsibility (“COR”) from the Mississippi State Board of Contractors for work in excess of $50,000 on a private or public project, the contract is null and void and the contractor is not entitled to ANY compensation under ANY legal theory if it performed work without the appropriate COR. In this particular case, the subcontractor did not have a COR but entered into a contract with the prime contractor. When the subcontractor sued for payment, the prime contractor claimed the subcontract was null and void and refused to pay the subcontractor. The trial court agreed and the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. This decision is an important reminder for prime contractors and subcontractors at all tiers to make sure that you have the required COR for the work to be performed. If there is any doubt, contractors should contact the Mississippi State Board of Contractors at (601) 354-6161, (808) 880-6161 or visit their website at www.msboc.us. Tags: COR, Certificate of Responsibility, Construction, Contractor, Mississippi, Null and Void, Payment, subcontractor
Comments Trackbacks Beware of Tolling Agreements
Posted on April 23, 2013 by Christopher Solop
Tags: Construction News, Contract, Contractor, Dispute, Statute of Limitation, Tolling Agreement
Comments Trackbacks Mississippi District Court Finds Mississippi Stop Payment Statute Unconstitutional
Comments Trackbacks Construction Industry Legislation for 2012
Posted on May 10, 2012 by Christopher Solop
Tags: Attorney, Construction News, Contractor, Fees', Joint Check, Legislation, Payment Bond, s
Comments Trackbacks Appeals from School Board Orders--Do not delay!
Posted on December 1, 2011 by Christopher Solop
Tags: Appeal, Attorney, Bidding, Construction, Contractor, Protest, School Board, bid
Comments Trackbacks Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) offers E-Verify Assistance
Posted on July 20, 2011 by Christopher Solop
In an article published on June 9, 2011, by Brenda Redfern, employers were reminded that effective July 1, 2011, the Mississippi Employment Protection Act requires all Mississippi businesses to E-Verify all new employees. In conjunction with this statutory mandate, the Mississippi Department of Employment Security ("MDES") has announced it will E-Verify any prospective employees for employers who are looking to retain workers through MDES. Click here to see the article published regarding this e-verify service in the Mississippi Business Journal on July 18, 2011. An employer simply has to place a job order with MDES by calling 888-844-3511 or contacting a WIN Job Center. MDES will send a list of prospective employees, all of whom will be E-Verified. When an individual is hired, the employer simply notifies MDES and it will send an official "Certification of I-9 Completion" to the employer. This service can assist contractors in identifying potential employees and save many administrative hours and headaches.
In addition, MDES has also agreed to implement a process it calls "reversal referrals". This is where an employer identifies a prospective employee and can send him/her to a WIN Job Center where the individual is E-Verified. The name of the individual is sent back to the prospective employer by MDES and, if hired, MDES will send the required certification. Employees that use MDES for E-Verification may relieve themselves from potential liability under the Mississippi Employment Protection Act.
Tags: Construction News, Contractor, E-Verify, Employer, MDES, MEPA, Mississippi Department of Employment Security, Mississippi Employment Protection Act
Comments Trackbacks The Duty to Proceed--Do I really have to do change order work without getting paid?
Tags: Architect, CLAIM, Change Order, Contractor, Contracts, Dispute, Duty to Proceed, Extra Work, Owner, Termination
Comments Trackbacks Claims for Construction Defects--Where did I put my insurance policy?
Posted on July 5, 2011 by Christopher Solop
Mississippi contractors should know that Mississippi law (§15-1-41) allows a party to bring suit for defective construction within six (6) years “after the written acceptance or actual occupancy or use, whichever occurs first, of such improvement by the owner thereof.” The last thing a contractor wants to be confronted with, especially if the contractor is no longer in business, is a demand or lawsuit to address allegedly defective work. This scenario may not have seemed likely five years ago, but with the downturn in the economy, many contractors are being forced to close their doors. Don’t panic—yet. Your insurance or that purchased by your subcontractors where you were identified as an additional insured may provide you with defense and indemnity protection. When you do get a demand or served with a lawsuit from a former client alleging defective construction, you should contact your legal counsel and insurance agent. Your legal counsel can advise you how to respond to the demand or lawsuit and your insurance agent can help you find the policy in place when the project was constructed. You will then be in a position to notify your insurance carrier of the situation. Hopefully, your policy will either cover the claim of defective construction or pay for the cost associated with defending against the claim. If your insurance carrier or that of your subcontractor sends you a letter denying coverage, do not take no for an answer—at least not right away. You should have your attorney review the applicable policy language to verify whether there is coverage. Tags: Attorney, Construction Defects, Contractor, Contracts, Insurance, Lawyer, Policy, insurance coverage
Comments Trackbacks General Disclaimers in Plans and Specifications
Posted on June 27, 2011 by Christopher Solop
Tags: Architect, Construction, Contractor, Contracts, engineer, general disclaimers, warranty of plans and specifications
Comments Trackbacks What do I need to include in a request for equitable adjustment?
Posted on October 6, 2010 by Christopher Solop
The objective of a claim is to explain why the contractor is entitled to equitable adjustment in the contract price and time. This requires the contractor to establish (a) entitlement or the contractual/legal right to additional compensation or time and (b) quantum or the amount of additional compensation to which the contractor is entitled. The contractor provides this information in the form of a narrative statement including all relevant supporting documentation.
The general format for any request for equitable adjustment should include the following:
Describe what the contract documents required, citing to the specific portions of the plans and specifications (copy and attach relevant portions of the contract document as part of the claim).
Describe how the contractor interpreted the contract documents and relied upon this interpretation in preparing its bid and developing a plan for performance.
Explain the contractor’s original plan for performance based upon the representations in the contract documents.
Describe how the contractor’s plan for performance was changed or impacted. Include citations to correspondence and other documents to support the change and all notifications to architect/owner. (incorporate photographs if available)
Set forth the calculations for quantum and include all supporting data (invoices, payroll documents, green book/corps of engineer pages supporting equipment rates, time sheets and/or daily reports etc.)
In these difficult economic times it is essential that a contractor provides a comprehensive and complete document as the first step in the claim process. If the initial claim is thorough and properly supported, it conveys the message that the contractor knows what he is doing and has legitimate grounds for an equitable adjustment. Conversely, a loosely prepared, unsupported claim sends the message that the contractor is just looking for more money and cannot backup the claim. It takes time to prepare a detailed claim, but it is time well spent.
Tags: CLAIM, Contractor, Contracts, DOCUMENTATION, EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT
Comments Trackbacks No Certificate of Responsibility = Null and Void Contract
[T]he contract entered into between United and Wee Care was null and void because United failed to possess the appropriate certificate of responsibility for the type of work it undertook to perform. Having found that United’s contract with Wee Care was void, it follows that any contractual obligations AmSouth [the lender] may have owed [United or] the subcontractors are also void. (emphasis added). If a contractor or subcontractor does not have a current certificate of responsibility, it may find itself in the position of having furnished labor and material on a project and not being paid. This could result in a financial disaster for one party and a windfall for the other party.
United makes it abundantly clear that owners, contractors and subcontractors should always check Mississippi State Board of Contractors to determine if the contractor or subcontractor holds a license for the work to be performed. It is also prudent for a party to confirm with the licensed entity that the qualifying party is currently an "owner, or a responsible managing employee, or a responsible managing officer, or a member of the executive staff…" See, Who Can be a "Qualifying Party" for a Contractor’s Certificate of Responsibility? Posted on this blog site by Christopher Solop, May 13, 2009. (The State Board of Contractors has recently proposed an amendment to Rule L shortening the period to replace a qualifying party after the individual holding the certificate of responsibility leaves the employment of the company from 180 days to 90 days. This change will take effect on October 8, 2009.) Tags: Certificate of Responsibility, Construction Law, Contract, Contractor, Contracts, Mississippi Construction Law, Mississippi State Board of Contractors, Null and Void, Owner, Public and Private Construction, Qualifying Party, Work Classification, bid, subcontractor
Comments Trackbacks Mandatory Pre-Bid Meetings - Do I really have to attend?
There is an emerging trend in public bids to include a requirement for a mandatory pre-bid meeting. The requirement to attend the pre-bid meeting is typically set forth in the Instructions to Bidders ("ITB") and provides that a contractor’s failure to attend will result in its bid being rejected as non-responsive. As a preliminary matter, there is no Mississippi statute or regulation which requires a public agency to conduct a pre-bid meeting or for a contractor to attend a pre-bid meeting to qualify it to submit a bid. This is a "requirement" typically included in the Instructions to Bidders by the Owner/Architect. One reason it may be included is to give "local" contractors an advantage over "foreign" contractors. "Foreign" contractors are forced to expend additional time and effort to attend the pre-bid meeting, and cannot simply throw a bid together and submit it to the public agency. Another reason the requirement is included may be to give the opportunity for the Owner/Architect to give final, pre-bid information on the project requirements and, sometimes, even to serve as an alternative (though not a good one) to an amendment to the ITB.
In most instances, the Owner/Architect will open the bids and address the issue only if the apparent low bidder has not attended the pre-bid meeting. The bigger the spread between the apparent low bidder and the second low bidder, the more likely it is that failure to attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting will be waived. The Mississippi Attorney General has opined that "a bidding irregularity may be waived if: (1) the irregularity does not destroy the competitive character of the bid by affecting the amount of the bid thereby giving the bidder an advantage or benefit over other bidders and (2) the irregularity does not involve noncompliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement." Because the requirement to attend a pre-bid meeting is not a statutory or regulatory requirement, Owners/Architects frequently waive the pre-bid meeting requirement without a challenge. If, however, the Owner/Architect does not agree to voluntarily waive the irregularity, an argument can be made that by opening the contractor’s bid that did not attend the pre-bid meeting; the Owner/Architect has already waived the requirement. There is another alternative. A contractor that is concerned about the requirement for a mandatory pre-bid meeting can file a pre-bid protest with the public agency challenging this requirement as unduly restrictive on competition and not in the best interests of the public. Tags: Architect, Bidding, Construction Law, Contractor, Foreign Contractor, Local Contractor, Mississippi Construction Law, Non-responsive, Owner, Pre-bid Meeting, Pre-bid Protest, Public Contract Law, Unduly Restrictive, Waiver, bid protest
Comments Trackbacks When is Enough, Enough - The "Shaken Faith Doctrine"