Introduction
Congress enacted the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA)[1] to “provide a fair, balanced, and comprehensive statutory system of legal and administrative remedies in resolving government contract claims.”[2] But for many involved in public construction projects, the CDA does not always feel like a fair or comprehensive scheme for resolving disputes caused by the acts or omissions of the Government. In particular, subcontractors and suppliers are barred by principles of sovereign immunity from suing procuring agencies directly where Government representatives impact, delay, or increase the cost of the work.[3] Because subcontractors and suppliers lack privity with the agency, their recourse for Government interference is limited to “pass-through” or “sponsored” claims, which hinge on the general contractor’s willingness to take up the torch on their behalf.[4] Continue Reading On the Effective Use of Liquidating Agreements
The Illinois Contractor Prompt Payment Act, 815 ILCS 603/1, et seq. (the “Act”) was first enacted in 2007 and designed to safeguard contractors and subcontractors on private projects by providing a mechanism to expedite payments for work performed. The Act applies to all private construction projects in Illinois, except those involving single family residences or multiple family residences with twelve or fewer units in a single building. With the Act, Illinois joined a growing number of states that had enacted similar legislation.
Seyfarth Construction Associate Michael Wagner presented the “Construction Site Data Disclaimers: Who Really Carries the Risk?” webinar for Lorman on August 26, 2019, and an 
President Trump continues to push forward with his “Buy American, Hire American” initiative with the issuance of his third Executive Order No. 13881 (the “Order”) on July 15, 2019, entitled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials.” This Order attempts to strengthen the standards that federal agencies must follow under the Buy American Act (“BAA”) by raising the threshold for domestic purchasing requirements. 
Congress enacted the Buy American Act (“BAA”) during the Great Depression, in order to protect American industry from foreign competition on federal procurement contracts. While the BAA is simplistic in its policy goal of promoting domestic purchasing, government contractors and subcontractors are often faced with complex and confusing rules for compliance. 
Developments in virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have undoubtedly streamlined traditional design and engineering methods. With VR technology, users are able to fully imagine themselves in a realistic replication of a physical space (think head-mount displays). AR technology supplements what can be imagined in the actual world by adding computer generated images (think Pokémon Go). By utilizing software and devices to map physical space in virtual environments, VR and AR technology allows parties to a construction contract to mitigate the risk of design defects and the inevitable claims and litigation that follow them. VR and AR sectors are predicted to generate $150 billion by 2020.
Seyfarth Shaw partner Chuck Wall will moderate a panel entitled “(Don’t) Kill All the Lawyers…Untangling Risk Issues in P3 Projects” on Friday, July 19. The panel will be featured at the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) Public-Private Partnerships in Transportation Conference. The program is intended to explore legal perspectives on key contractual risk issues in the current P3 market. Topics will include a look at the current state of risk allocations and whether P3 risk profiles and tolerances may be shifting.
On June 17, 2019, from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern, David Blake is co-presenting a Strafford webinar entitled: “Construction Management Agreements: Key Provisions Common Areas of Dispute, and Minimizing Performance Risks.” The panel, which includes construction practitioners experienced in negotiating construction management contracts, will focus on best practices for drafting and negotiating these agreements. They will also cover the critical clauses to include in the contracts and provide strategies for avoiding common drafting pitfalls and resolving contract disputes.
As a response to an increasingly demanding market place, project delivery methods have evolved from the more traditional methods of design-bid-build, design-build, and construction-manager-at-risk into what is known as Integrated Project Delivery (“IPD”). In the typical construction contract, each party seeks to avoid and transfer risk to other parties. The IPD approach employs a different philosophy—the project participants accept and manage design and construction risks as a team. The pure IPD method often does this with a single, multi-party contract that is executed by the owner, general contractor, and designer. The team members to a multi-party contract share financial risks and rewards using a profit/incentive pool that is based upon measurable project-outcomes. Team members collaborate on how the profit and incentive pool is structured to ensure that each member is accountable for its contribution to the project outcome. The goal is to motivate each member in a way that encourages candid communication and accountability for overall design and construction. 
On April 25 and 26, James Newland, partner in Seyfarth’s Construction Practice Group, will be presenting the “Changes and Claims in Government Construction Contracting” course at the Federal Publications Seminar at the Executive Conference and Training Center in Sterling, Virginia. His presentation will focus on owner changes and contractor claims in the federal government contracting arena. James regularly presents for the Federal Publications Seminars, which provide periodic training covering a variety of government contracting issues.