Tag Archives: subcontract

Five for Fighting:  Subcontract Provisions Every Subcontractor Must Know to Get Paid

By on September 2, 2015

While there are any number of subcontract provisions that subcontractors must be aware of in order to negotiate subcontracts favorably, the following five provisions are critical to insuring that your business gets paid for the work it performs.

Lien Provisions

Did you know that it’s perfectly legal to relinquish your statutory right to a mechanic’s lien in New Hampshire?  If you did, give yourself a small pat on the back.  All too often, however, subcontractors – especially those new to working in New Hampshire – fail to appreciate that they can waive their right to assert or maintain a mechanic’s lien through their subcontract.  Worse still, it is often the case that subcontractors learn this valuable piece of information at the very worst time:  when they need to secure a mechanic’s lien for delinquent payment on a project.

In order to avoid this painful result, have your subcontracts reviewed carefully in-house or by your attorney, with a specific focus on any provision or language that relates to waiving or relinquishing the right to assert, maintain or perfect a lien or an attachment against the owner or its property.  If you see it, don’t accept it.  The mechanic’s lien is a very useful tool to make sure you get paid in New Hampshire, and you shouldn’t give it away before you start your project.   

Retainage Provisions 

Most every project contains a retainage provision, so how different could they be?  If you treat retainage provisions interchangeably, you may go a long time before you get paid that all important final five to fifteen percent of your contract balance.

Retainage provisions are like Skittles:  many flavors and some are better than others.  For example, if you’re a subcontractor that performs work early on in a project, it will be beneficial to negotiate retainage reductions based on acceptance of your scope of work by the project owner.  If you accept a common retainage provision that simply calls for the owner to withhold ten percent until the completion of the project, and you’re responsible for clearing the site and preparing for building or paving, it may be years before your final retainage payment becomes due, let alone gets paid.  Surely, that final ten percent looks better in your pocket than the owner’s.  As a result, it’s imperative that you closely monitor the retainage provision in each subcontract you execute.

Retainage isn’t intended to be an annuity that you receive years after you perform your work, but instead should provide the owner some security that you’ll finish your scope of work after you’ve been paid the majority of your contract balance.  If you focus on negotiating a retainage provision that fairly accounts for your scope of work and its timing in connection with the overall project, you shouldn’t need to wait extended periods of time to receive the final payment you’re owed. 

Change Order Provisions

There are virtually as many change order provisions as there are subcontracts.  It seems that every general contractor or construction manager that doesn’t utilize an AIA subcontract document creates its own change order provision.  With so many iterations of a provision meant to capture the same thing, more or less, what should your company be looking for? 

In short, to maximize your chances of getting paid for extra or change work, subcontractors should strive to negotiate change order provisions that come as close as possible to mirroring the reality of performing work on a project.  More often than not, that reality is a fast-paced project with a limited schedule where changed or extra work cannot wait weeks for signed change orders from executive level corporate representatives.  As a result, subcontractors are best served by negotiating change order provisions whose terms are not unduly burdensome, restrictive or otherwise difficult to satisfy. 

For instance, the author recently reviewed several subcontracts which directed that only the company president or another board level executive were authorized to approve a change in scope.  This is hardly practical for a subcontractor.  Ordinarily, a general contractor’s executives are not in the field regularly, and do not have the kind of “hands on” knowledge of a project that a project manager or superintendent possesses.  Worse still, executives are not readily available to subcontractors, as a general matter.  As a result, it’s not difficult to anticipate the difficulties that a subcontractor is likely to face when trying to balance the need to perform change order work, to maintain the project schedule and to secure the appropriate written authorization to perform the work.  These competing interests often lead to subcontractors performing work before they are authorized to do so according to the terms of their subcontracts, based on spoken assurances from onsite representatives of the general contractor.  This, in turn, exposes the subcontractor to the risk that the general contractor or the owner will reject the change order and that a fight will be necessary to get paid.

Because the competing interests in performing the work, meeting the schedule and securing appropriate authorization for changes in scope exist on so many projects, subcontractors are best served by negotiating change order provisions that mirror, as closely as possible, the anticipated conditions in field.  Doing so will go a long way toward insuring that you’ll be paid for your extras.  To the extent that you have any doubt regarding what steps are necessary to make sure you’re complying with the change order provision in your subcontract, you’re well advised to speak with your construction attorney.

Pay if Paid Provisions

Construction lawyers frequently discuss the concept of “risk allocation” with their clients.  So what is risk allocation?  At is core, risk allocation is concept used to describe how the parties to a contract divide or allot the various risks attendant to a particular contract. 

 A “pay if paid” provision is a tool used by general contractors and constructions managers to reallocate the risk of nonpayment, that for many years, was borne by the general contractor or construction manager.  A “pay if paid” provision operates exactly as it sounds.  That is, it’s a provision that conditions payment to a subcontractor for work it performs on the upstream contractor first receiving payment from the owner, or from the party upstream from it.  In other words, if the general contractor doesn’t get paid from the owner, the general contractor has no obligation to make payment to its subcontractor, regardless of whether the subcontractor fully and dutifully performed its work.

Does it make sense for a subcontractor to accept a “pay if paid” provision in its subcontract?  The answer is unequivocally no.  The vast majority of subcontractors have no ability to determine the financial solvency of the owner or the dependability of its construction financing.  Furthermore, a subcontractor has no direct contract with the owner, as the general contractor does, which thereby limits the subcontractor’s potential legal remedies if the owner elects not to pay for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the subcontractor.  Because of these issues and others, subcontractors should be reticent to execute any contract that contains “pay if paid” language.  Because “pay if paid” language can be difficult to discern from other kinds of risk allocation devices, such as “pay when paid” and similar provisions, if you have any doubt about what your contract specifies seek the advice of your construction attorney.

Attorney’s Fees Provisions

Last, but certainly not least, subcontractors must understand what the attorney’s fees provisions mean in their subcontracts.  Like all of the foregoing types of provisions, there isn’t a one size fits all remedy.  What stands out about the importance of an attorney’s fee provision is that in some very important instances, the only way to enforce or determine your rights with respect to each of the kinds of provisions discussed above, is to employ the services of an attorney.  And that costs money.  So, if you don’t have an adequate provision of this kind, you’ll be forced to decide whether or not to pursue claims for payment (or other claims) based not upon whether you’re entitled to be paid, but rather by how much you’ll have to spend to get paid.

This isn’t lost on some less scrupulous general contractors.  In some instances, if a general contractor knows you’ll have to spend enough money to chase payments you’re owed that it becomes throwing good money after bad, they’ll simply pocket the money you should be paid and force you to bring suit against them.  This is no way to keep your projects profitable.

In order to make sure that you don’t fall victim to this scenario, insure that your contract has an attorney’s fees provision that calls for your fees to be paid in the event that you need the services of an attorney to enforce your rights under your subcontract.

So what do you do when the general contractor won’t agree to an attorney’s fee provision that runs in your favor?  In that instance, you negotiate what is known as a “prevailing party” provision.  A “prevailing party” provision calls for either party to a contract to receive their attorney’s fees and other costs from the other side in the event that a particular party prevails in an arbitration or lawsuit.  As is the case with each of the foregoing kinds of provisions, the devil is in the details of the provision.  Nevertheless, if you’re diligent about reviewing (or having someone else review) the language of any proposed attorney’s fee provision, you’ll be much less likely to learn that your subcontract only gives the general contractor the right to recover its attorney’s fees. 

If you master the foregoing five kinds of provisions, or engage your construction attorney to help you do so, you will negotiate better subcontracts before you get started and you’ll almost certainly forestall a variety of construction disputes before they have the opportunity to ripen.  Should you have questions regarding any of the information presented here, you’d be well advised to contact your New Hampshire or Massachusetts construction attorney.

Proposed Changes to The Retainage Law for Massachusetts Private Construction Projects

By on June 30, 2015

*with contributions from Christopher D. Strang

In November 2014, the Massachusetts Legislature passed Mass. Gen. Law c. 149, § 29F, entitled “Payment of Retainage in Private Construction Projects” (“The Retainage Law”).  The Retainage Law reduced the amount of retainage that can be withheld on many large private construction projects. It also provides deadlines for paying retainage amounts and methods for determining the date of substantial completion.  The Massachusetts Senate recently held hearings on proposed Bill Number 1006, which seeks to amend the statutory language of this law.

Under the changes proposed in Bill 1006, The Retainage Law would be limited in its application and would only control the amount of retainage withheld on certain private construction projects. Below is an explanation of the standards The Retainage Law currently sets forth, followed by an explanation of the changes Bill 1006 proposes.

Projects Covered by The Retainage Law

The Retainage Law applies to all private construction contracts entered into after November 6, 2014 valued over $3 million dollars, with the exception of residential projects for four or fewer units.

Limitations on Retainage

Retainage is specifically limited to 5% of each periodic payment. Contracts that either waive, limit or subvert the 5% retainage cap may be void and unenforceable under the statute.

Notices of Substantial Completion

Under The Retainage Law, general contractors must submit a “Notice of Substantial Completion” to the owner within 14 days of determining that it has achieved substantial completion. The statute defines “substantial completion” as the stage in the project where the project work is sufficiently complete as to permit the owner to occupy or utilize the premises for its intended use. Substantial completion may be applied to the project as a whole or to a phase of the entire project where the contract permits substantial completion for project phases.

The owner then has 14 days to notify the general contractor whether it accepts or rejects the Notice of Substantial Completion. To reject it, an owner must notify the contractor in writing and include “the factual and contractual basis for rejection,” along with a certification that the rejection was made in good faith. Rejection of the Notice of Substantial Completion permits the contractor to utilize the dispute resolution procedures provided for in the contract, which must begin within 7 days after the rejection (unless the contractor later resubmits a Notice of Substantial Completion). If the owner fails to deliver notice of its rejection within 14 days, or fails to comply with the requirements of Section 29F(d), the date indicated by the contractor in the Notice of Substantial Completion will be deemed accepted by the owner.

The owner has 14 days from the date the Notice of Substantial Completion is accepted to submit a written punchlist to the contractor. The punchlist must describe all incomplete or defective work items and deliverables required of the contractor, and include a certification that it is made in good faith. A “Deliverable” is defined by Section 29F(a) as “a project close-out document that shall be submitted by the [contractor] seeking payment of retainage under the [contractor’s contract] for construction; provided, however, that a lien waiver or release, which is a deliverable, shall comply with chapter 254; and provided further, that ‘deliverable’ shall not include any document affirming, certifying or confirming completion or correction of labor, materials or other items furnished or incomplete or defective work.” The contractor must then pass on a written punchlist to each subcontractor it is holding retainage against within an additional 7 days (or 21 days after the date the Notice of Substantial Completion is accepted), detailing all incomplete or defective work items and deliverables. The punchlist to the contractor’s subcontractors may include items beyond those on the owner’s punchlist and must also include a certification that it is made in good faith. Both the general contractor and subcontractors are permitted under The Retainage Law to dispute the items listed on punchlists.

Applications for Payment of Retainage

General contractors and subcontractors must submit a written application for payment of retainage within 60 days after the date of substantial completion for a final and binding resolution regarding a disputed date. This application must include a written list of all punchlist items that were completed, repaired, and delivered, and must be certified by the submitting party that it was made in good faith.

The owner then has 30 days to provide payment of retainage to the contractor. When providing payment of retainage, owners are permitted to withhold portions of the retainage to cover incomplete or defective work, limited by the following:

  • for incomplete, incorrect or missing deliverables, either (a) the value of the deliverable, as mutually agreed upon in writing between the owner and contractor or (b) if no value has been agreed upon, the reasonable value of the deliverables, not to exceed 2.5% of the total adjusted contract price;
  • 150% of the reasonable cost to complete or correct incomplete or defective work items; and
  • the reasonable value of claims and any costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred if the claim is allowed under the contract.

Portions of retainage may only be withheld where the contractor seeking payment received a detailed punchlist from the owner prior to the date payment is due. The time period for payment under an application for payment is extended by a period of 7 days for the contractor at each tier of contract below the general subcontractor. Contractors may submit further applications for payment of retainage as work is completed on the project. The Retainage Law specifically prevents owners from withholding retainage payments otherwise due to subcontractors where the general contractor is not in default. General contractors have 7 days to forward retainage payments to subcontractors.

At a minimum, The Retainage Law requires applications for payment of retainage to be submitted at least once a month. Rejection of an application is also subject to dispute resolution procedures, which may be initiated 30 days after the rejection of an application for payment of retainage.

Bill No. 1006 – Proposed Changes to The Retainage Law

Bill 1006, if passed, will dramatically change the scope and effect of The Retainage Law. It would add exemptions for construction projects which are financed or supported, in whole or in part, by state or federal mortgage assistance, special taxing arrangements, tax credits, grants, issuance of bonds, loans, loan guarantees, debt, or equity assistance.

It also proposes removing the sections relating to notices of substantial completion and applications for payment of retainage entirely. Bill 1006 would reduce The Retainage Law to the following content: (1) retainage is limited to 5% of the contract price and (2) contracts which require or permit retainage in excess of 5% of the contract price will be void and unenforceable insofar as any such excess is concerned.

Impact of The Retainage Law and Bill No. 1006

Citing practical issues with meeting the deadlines set forth in The Retainage Law, some project developers and owners have articulated a desire to remove large portions of it. In particular, they cite the 14-day limitation to accept or reject the date of substantial completion as impractical and unachievable. Some general contractors criticize the additional 7 days for paying subcontractors, and for completing and forwarding punchlists. Some also claim the law does not adequately consider the complexity of communication between multiple parties on large projects.

Bill 1006 alters the language that retainage may not exceed 5% of “any progress payment” to state that retainage may not exceed 5% “of the contract price.” While the amount would equal out at the end of the project, the proposed changes would arguably allow an owner or higher tiered contractor to withhold more than 5% from any single payment, so long as the amount equals 5% of the total contract price. Such a change could negate the benefit contractors receive through larger progress payments throughout a project, but would have no impact on the amount of retainage outstanding at the end of the project.

Whether Bill 1006 will be enacted and what additional changes, if any, are to be made to the Retainage Law will be determined over the next several months. It is clear that there is significant interest in creating consistency in retainage guidelines for the construction industry.

The foregoing information is a general summary regarding proposed changes to retainage in private construction projects in Massachusetts. If you are uncertain about anything regarding the amount of retainage withheld on a project or the process of obtaining payment for retainage amounts, contact your construction attorney to ensure the necessary steps are taken to achieve the best possible outcome.

 

Subcontractors: Do You Really Know What You’ve Waived in Your Lien Waiver?

By on April 27, 2015

Many subcontractors treat lien waivers interchangeably:  that is, if you’ve seen one, you’ve them all.  More and more, treating lien waivers in this manner could lead to significant and costly consequences.  Increasingly, general contractors and construction managers are providing subcontractors and suppliers with a new breed of lien waiver.  Unlike traditional lien waivers that sought only to protect the owner from the prospect of unwanted labor and materials (mechanic’s) liens cropping up on their projects, many new “lien waivers” are crafted with the intent for the subcontractor to agree to far more than a simple waiver of its lien.

In New Hampshire, and other jurisdictions, it’s well-settled law that contractors and subcontractors may waive their right to assert or perfect a mechanic’s lien by contract.  Savvy owners, developers and general contractors have long drafted contracts with this in mind.  As more and more subcontractors rejected provisions that limited or restrained their right to assert mechanic’s liens, owners, developers and general contractors have started to shift additional waiver language from subcontracts into lien waivers.  As an illustration, consider the following, taken in part from a lien waiver recently reviewed by the author:

 “In consideration of receipt of payment, the undersigned irrevocably and unconditionally releases and waives any and all mechanic’s liens or other liens or right to claim any and all mechanic’s liens or other liens against [the property].  Additionally, the undersigned waives and releases any and all other claims against the Owner, the property or the Contractor, or any other claims of any kind whatsoever in connection with the Subcontract and the property.  The undersigned shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and Contractor against any lien, bond, claims or suits in connection with the materials, labor and everything else in connection with the subcontract.”

In this instance, the subcontractor waived not only its right to assert a mechanic’s lien or any other lien upon accepting payment, but the subcontractor also waived its right to assert ANY claim related to the contract or the property.  Furthermore, the subcontractor has affirmatively agreed to indemnify the owner and contractor for any claims connected to the materials, labor or “anything else in connection with the subcontract.”  Among other things, this means that contractor has agreed to pay the general contractor and the owner for any costs they might incur in dissolving a lien on the project arising from the subcontractor’s sub-subcontractors or suppliers or in resolving any other claim or lawsuit connected with the sub-subcontractor or material supplier’s involvement in the project.  This so-called “waiver,” contains substantially more than a waiver of the subcontractor’s right to claim a lien in consideration of its partial payment on the subcontract.  

Some lien waivers go a step further.  Consider the following language, taken in part, from another lien waiver recently reviewed by the author:

 “In consideration of the receipt of the payment above, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, [the subcontractor] releases and forever discharges [the contractor and owner] of and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities and other obligations respecting payment for, upon or by reason of work, labor and/or materials furnished through the date shown below to the construction project.”

At first blush, this provision appears ordinary enough.  A more thorough consideration of the highlighted language, however, reveals that the provision is carefully calculated to insure that each month the subcontractor waives its right to pursue payment for all work performed before the date the lien waiver is signed. 

So why is this a problem?  To the extent that the subcontractor signing such a lien waiver performed extra work, change order work or has disputed work that occurred prior to signing the lien waiver, and the subcontractor accepts the payment referenced in the lien waiver without carving an exception for the added, changed or disputed work, the subcontractor has agreed to relinquish its right to any further payment, a lien or a claim for payment for that work.  In other words, the subcontractor has agreed not to be paid anything further for work performed through the date the lien waiver is signed, regardless of whether the subcontractor is otherwise entitled to payment.  In tying the subcontractor’s waiver to a particular date in time, rather than to an agreed upon amount to be paid, this waiver extinguishes any claim for payment for any work performed that wasn’t included in the subcontractor’s payment for which the lien waiver was signed.  This subtle, but very important distinction, can prove costly when the subcontractor fails to appreciate its impact on its right to payment.

Other lien waivers seek to make the subcontractor a trustee, converting the funds paid to the subcontractor into trust funds for the benefit of its subcontractors and suppliers, by agreement.  Take the following example:

 “The undersigned [subcontractor] acknowledges and agrees that it is receiving the funds paid in consideration of this payment application as a trustee, and said funds will be held in trust for the benefit of all subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers and laborers who supplied work for which the beneficiaries or their property might be liable, and that the [subcontractor] shall have no interest in such funds until all these obligations have been satisfied in full.”

In this instance, rather than taking payment as the rightful owner of the funds paid, the subcontractor accepts payment as a trustee for its sub-subcontractors and materials suppliers, installing affirmative obligations and fiduciary duties on the subcontractor to its sub-subcontractors and suppliers, which otherwise do not exist.  By virtue of the language in this provision, the subcontractor has agreed to restrict its discretion and ability to use the funds paid to it for its work as it deems necessary, replacing its discretion with the affirmative obligation to hold and distribute the funds paid to its subcontractors and suppliers on behalf of the owner and general contractor.  In a perfect world, every subcontractor would pay each of its sub-subcontractors and suppliers in full out of each payment it received on a project.  In the real world, there are often good business reasons for subcontractors to withhold some or all of the payments claimed due by its sub-subcontractors and suppliers, or to apply certain portions of the payments it receives elsewhere.  This language removes the subcontractor’s discretion to do so.

With increasing frequency, developers, owners and general contractors employ “lien waivers” intended to do much more than insure that mechanic’s liens aren’t perfected against a property after payment has been made.  Instead, this new breed of “lien waivers” is intended to create “knowing” waivers of subcontractors’ affirmative rights after they have signed their subcontract.  These “lien waivers” are intended to rewrite the bargain to which the parties agreed in their subcontract by downshifting the owner’s and general contractor’s desired contractual terms into a lien waiver when it might otherwise have been rejected in the subcontract.  It’s no longer sufficient for subcontractor’s to review only the proposed subcontract and scope of work.  Subcontractors must review proposed lien waivers carefully to insure that the lien waivers aren’t an agreement not to be paid.  If you have any questions or concerns regarding the provisions of your lien waivers, consult your construction attorney for a thorough assessment of the risks and exposures.