Tag Archives: Miller Act

PRIME CONTRACTOR INTERVENING INTO LAWSUIT AS PRINCIPAL OF MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND

Posted on by


In a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit (or any payment bond lawsuit for that matter), there are many times where a claimant (subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier) will sue the Miller Act payment bond surety and NOT the prime contractor or principal of the payment bond.  There are also times where the prime contractor moves to intervene in the lawsuit as the principal of the payment bond. Perhaps the prime contractor wants to assert a counterclaim against the claimant or a third-party claim.  These affirmative claims would belong to the prime contractor and not its surety; thus, the prime contractor moves to intervene in the lawsuit so that it can assert such affirmative claim(s) in the context of the dispute against its surety.  Oftentimes, a federal district court will allow the prime contractor to permissively intervene in the lawsuit as the principal of the payment bond, especially if the prime contractor plans to assert an affirmative claim to allow for the efficient resolution and disposition of all such claims. 

 

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o Jackson Geothermal HVAC & Drilling, LLC v. Western Surety Co., 2016 WL 1030392, (D.N.J. 2016), the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to provide HVAC, geothermal services, plumbing, and sprinklers.  The subcontractor, in turn, subcontracted the geothermal services to the claimant–a sub-subcontractor on the project.  The sub-subcontractor (claimant) filed a lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond surety for approximately $300,000.  The prime contractor, as principal of the payment bond, moved to intervene in the lawsuit primarily to (a) assert an affirmative claim for negligence against the sub-subcontractor and (b) assert a third-party claim against its subcontractor for breach of contract and negligence.  The issue before the court was whether the prime contractor should be able to intervene in the sub-subcontractor’s lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond surety.  The district could found that permissive intervention was appropriate to allow the prime contractor to intervene in the sub-subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond lawsuit:

 

[T]he Court finds no reason to believe that permitting Ranco [prime contractor / principal of payment bond] to intervene in this matter will unduly delay these proceedings or unfairly prejudice the adjudication of Jackson’s rights. While Ranco could pursue its state law claims against B&S [subcontractor] and Jackson [sub-subcontractor claimant] in state court, “notions of judicial economy suggest aggregating them in a single proceeding […] rather than have different tribunals examine these issues at different times.” Indeed, as the Third Circuit has noted, the court’s policy preference, i.e., “judicial economy, favors intervention over subsequent collateral attacks.” As a result, the Court finds that intervention will protect all of the parties from having to revisit the main issues being litigated here in separate proceedings. Thus, the Court shall permit Ranco to intervene in this matter. 

Western Surety Company, supra, at *4 (internal citation omitted).

 

There are times where a principal prime contractor intervening into a lawsuit against its surety may not be appropriate.  But, if the principal has affirmative claims or if the surety happens to be represented by different counsel (such that the surety is not allowing the principal to defend it with the principal’s preferred counsel) the prime contractor has a stronger basis to intervene in the lawsuit as a principal of the payment bond.   A prime contractor intervening in a lawsuit against its Miller Act payment bond surety is an important consideration based on the factual circumstances of the dispute.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

QUICK NOTE: SUIT AGAINST MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND MAY NOT BE BROUGHT UNTIL 90 DAYS AFTER FINAL FURNISHING

Posted on by

 

imagesIf you have a claim against a Miller act payment bond, a lawsuit cannot be brought until 90 days after your final furnishing date.  This is set forth in 40 USC s. 3133(b)(1) that provides if you “have not been paid in full within 90 days after the day on which…[you]…performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the material for which the claim is made [you] may bring a civil action on the payment bond.”   In other words, your claim is ripe 90 days after your final furnishing date.  With that said, even if you prematurely filed suit before this 90-day period, there is authority that the lawsuit should not be dismissed, but rather, you can cure this by filing a supplemental pleading (relating back to the original pleading).  Otherwise, if the lawsuit was dismissed, you could potentially be facing a statute of limitations argument barring your right to seek a Miller Act payment bond claim.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

DO NOT EXECUTE A WAIVER AND RELEASE IN CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT THAT RELEASES CLAIMS YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO RELEASE

Posted on by


Absolutely do NOT execute a waiver and release in consideration of a progress payment that waives and releases claims (such as change order requests, lost productivity, or delay) that you are not prepared to release through the date of the release.  Carve out such exceptions from the release—identify those claims or rights you are not prepared to release.  Otherwise, when you go to pursue such claims, the waiver and release you previously executed will come back to haunt you!

 

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o Chasney and Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 2016 WL 852730 D.Md. 2016), a prime contractor on a federal project subcontracted with a mechanical and plumbing subcontractor.  The subcontractor’s last partial waiver and release it executed in consideration of a progress payment was in November 2013 for payment through October 31, 2013. The waiver and release provided that the subcontractor waived and released all liens, claims, and demands against the prime contractor or its surety in connection with the project through the period covered by the payment (through October 31, 2013).  The waiver and release included space for the subcontractor to identify exceptions. No such exceptions were identified.  In fact, prior to November 2013, the subcontractor executed a total of 24 progress waivers and releases and never excepted a single item or claim from the release. 

 

Notwithstanding, the subcontractor encountered design defects that caused it to incur additional costs and delayed its performance.  The subcontractor asserted pass-through claims that the prime contractor submitted to the federal government.  However, when the prime contractor and government settled their issues and a global settlement was reached, no amounts were assigned to respective items such as the subcontractor’s pass-through claims. The subcontractor then asserted the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety.

 

Applicable here, the surety and prime moved for summary judgment that any damages, including delay-related damages, that the subcontractor sought through October 31, 2013 were waived and released through the subcontractor’s November 2013 progress waiver and release.  The District Court of Maryland agreed since all it had to look to was the last waiver and release the subcontractor executed where it waived and released such rights:

 

“By executing the October 31 Partial Release without exempting its claim, Chasney [subcontractor] relinquished its right to pursue the claim should it ever ripen. In hindsight, Chasney may regret its decision to sign such a release—but the Court’s task is to examine the agreement the parties did sign, not the agreement that one or the other now wishes they had negotiated instead….

***

In summary, the Court’s analysis begins and ends—as it must—with the unambiguous language of the Partial Releases. By signing each release, Chasney waived all claims relating to work performed through the covered period: no reasonable factfinder could conclude otherwise. While Chasney’s opposition brief teems with subtle linguistic maneuvers (and more than a few red herrings), Chasney cannot avoid the plain consequences of its contracting through artful argument….”

 

U.S. f/u/b/o Chasney & Company, 2016 WL at *7, 9 (internal quotations omitted).

 

Do NOT let this happen to you.  Preserve your rights and claims and do NOT waive and release claims you are NOT prepared to release!

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

SUBCONTRACTORS MAY (LIKELY) BE REQUIRED TO STAY THEIR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND CLAIMS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT RESOLUTION PROCESS

Posted on by


If you are a subcontractor on federal construction projects, the opinion by the District Court of Alaska in U.S. f/u/b/o Brice Environmental Services Corp. v. Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc., 2016 WL 544406 (D.Alaska 2016),  provides an interesting or not-so-interesting outlook on subcontractors that participate (perhaps by choice) in the request for equitable adjustment (REA) and Contract Disputes Act dispute resolution process.  (See this article for more on this outlook that creates a conflict between a subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond rights and a prime contractor’s participation in the Contract Disputes Act dispute resolution process.) 

In this matter, a soil remediation subcontractor submitted an REA to the prime contractor for approximately $3 Million associated with the prime contractor’s standby and additional work directives.  The subcontractor claimed that most of the REA was unrelated to issues caused by the owner, but rather, caused by the prime contractor.  The subcontractor and prime contractor agreed to a mutual termination of the subcontractor and the subcontractor reduced its REA to approximately $1.1 Million (to include only incurred costs versus anticipated costs).  The prime contractor then submitted a change order request to the federal government.  The subcontractor shortly thereafter sued the prime contractor and its Miller Act payment bond surety.

 

The prime contractor and its Miller Act payment bond surety moved to stay the lawsuit pending the completion a Contract Disputes Act resolution and, if required, completion of arbitration thereafter.  The subcontractor did not oppose staying its Miller Act payment bond claim pending arbitration with the prime contractor, but opposed staying the case pending the resolution of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim. However, the subcontractor acknowledged that claims attributable to the federal government are passed through to the government and that the subcontractor shall not maintain any proceeding against the prime contractor with respect to government-related (owner) claims until resolution of Contract Dispute Act claims.  Moreover, the subcontract provided for the completion of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process between the prime contractor and federal government before the subcontractor could maintain any proceeding against the prime contractor in connection with any omission, default, or act by the federal government.   

Here, the subcontractor could not establish that the federal government’s acts did not contribute to its claims against the prime contractor; and, the prime contractor submitted a change order to the federal government that included the subcontractor’s costs supporting its position that the federal government’s acts were connected to the subcontractor’s claim.  Nonetheless, the subcontractor argued it would be unfair if it had to bear the brunt of waiting for the resolution of any Contract Disputes Act claim between the prime contractor and federal government before the subcontractor could pursue its claim against the prime contractor.  The Court dismissed this argument and stayed the action pending the outcome of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process between the prime contractor and federal government expounding:

 

The economic strain of awaiting resolution of the CDA procedures between Defendant Bhate [prime contractor] and AFCEC [federal government] is, while burdensome, still a reasonably foreseeable event under the Subcontract. Furthermore, denying the Motion to Stay and allowing this matter to proceed would bifurcate the matter, creating parallel proceedings involving many of the same facts and witnesses. Additionally, it could potentially force Defendants [prime contractor and surety] to take inconsistent positions in the simultaneous proceedings, supporting Plaintiff’s claims against AFCEC while defending against them in the arbitration between the parties. An order staying this matter is supported not only by the contract, but also the promotion of judicial economy and efficiency.

Bhate Environmental Associates, supra, at *4. 

 

This is undoubtedly a harsh ruling for a subcontractor that is now forced to wait a potentially long time while the prime contractor participates in the Contract Disputes Act resolution process. While harsh, the subcontractor agreed to bear this risk in its subcontract.  And, from the Court’s rationale, even if the subcontractor did not bear this risk, the Court still found that staying the subcontractor’s claims promoted judicial economy since it prevented the prime contractor from dealing with simultaneous disputes (one with the subcontractor and another with the federal government) and taking inconsistent positions.  

From the prime contractor’s perspective, this language that requires the subcontractor to bear this risk and stay any dispute pending the outcome of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process is extremely important language (based on the precise reasoning by the Court quoted above). 

From the subcontractor’s perspective, this reinforces the notion that it is imperative for parties to appreciate the risks they are agreeing to in their contracts, particularly as it relates to the resolution of disputes.  Also, this reinforces the risk that a subcontractor performing federal construction work may have to bear irrespective of the subcontract.  

Although the subcontractor is now in a wait-and-see mode while the Contract Disputes Act process runs its course, the subcontractor was smart by perfecting its Miller Act payment bond rights by timely filing suit.  Even though the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act resolution process may take some time, the prime contractor and its payment bond surety will ultimately have to deal with this dispute if the outcome of its Contract Disputes Act claim does not fully resolve the subcontractor’s claim to the subcontractor’s satisfaction.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

TIMELY FILE YOUR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT

Posted on by


If you are a subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier on a federal construction project, please make sure to preserve your Miller Act payment bond rights.  This includes filing suit in a federal district court against the payment bond surety.   The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Thomas v. Burkhardt, 2016 WL 143351 (11th Cir. 2016) illustrates what can happen if you do not properly pursue your Miller Act payment bond rights.

 

In Thomas, a subcontractor sued a contractor in state court and recovered a judgment against the contractor.  When the subcontractor could not collect on its judgment, it sued the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety.  The problem was the subcontractor filed its lawsuit many years after the statute of limitations expired on the Miller Act.  The subcontractor argued the contractor’s surety should be bound by the state court judgment against the contractor (the principal of the payment bond). The Eleventh Circuit said “No!”  The surety was not bound by the state court judgment. Indeed, even if the surety had notice of the subcontractor’s state court suit against the contractor, the Eleventh Circuit still maintained that the surety would not be bound by the state court judgment and would not be estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense:

 

[T]he doctrine of estoppel against the surety rests on the principle that a surety with knowledge of a suit against the principal has a “full opportunity to defend” the suit and to protect its rights. But there is no such equitable principle at work here. The surety cannot protect its rights by joining in the defense of the suit. It cannot intervene as defendant any more than it could be named as defendant in the first place.

Thomas, supra, at *3 quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corp., 391 F.2d 13, 17 (5th Cir. 1968).

 

The morale is to timely file your Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety.  There is no reason not to!

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS SUMMARIZING PAYMENT BOND AND CONSTRUCTION LIEN RIGHTS

Posted on by


As they say, a picture is worth a 1,000 words.  How about charts and graphics?

Check out this chart that summarizes preserving and enforcing construction lien and payment bond rights in Florida.

Check out this chart that summarizes Miller Act payment bond rights in comparison to Florida private and public payment bond rights.

 

Check out this graphic that depicts Miller Act payment bond claimants.

And, finally, check out this graphic that depicts those entities entitled to construction liens and payment bond rights under Florida law.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

A MILLER ACT ASIDE: WHAT HAPPENS TO A THIRD TIER ENTITY IF A SUBCONTRACTOR FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

Posted on by


The opinion in J&B Boat Rental, LLC v. Jag Construction Services, Inc., 2015 WL 237604 (E.D.La. 2015) provides interesting analysis as to a third tier supplier’s Miller Act claim.  In this case, a subcontractor entered into an oral contract with a supplier to provide self-propelled vessels (tugs) to move barges.  Of course, because it was an oral contract, a dispute arose as to the rental rate for the vessels.  The supplier served its notice of non-payment and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond surety, prime contractor, and asserted a breach of contract action against the subcontractor that hired it.   The supplier was seeking approximately $66,000 in principal.

 

During the course of the lawsuit, the subcontractor filed for bankruptcy and the case was stayed.  The supplier filed a proof of claim in the subcontractor’s bankruptcy that was objected to by the subcontractor.  An evidentiary hearing was held in the bankruptcy court where the supplier was held to have an oral contract with the subcontractor and owed approximately $44,000 in principal. Of this amount, the supplier was only paid approximately $3,000 from the subcontractor’s bankruptcy estate.

 

The supplier then moved to lift the stay in its lawsuit to pursue only its Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the payment bond surety and prime contractor.  The supplier was seeking the $41,000 balance in rental costs for the vessels it was not paid based on the rental value of the vessels determined by the bankruptcy court.  The supplier moved for summary judgment and the prime contractor and surety moved for a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

 

The surety and prime contractor contended that the supplier should not be able to pursue the Miller Act claim because the supplier’s claim was barred (by the doctrine of claim preclusion) because it received a ruling in the bankruptcy court and was partially paid on the claim.  The trial court dismissed this argument because what the supplier recovered in the bankruptcy proceeding (under a breach of contract theory) had no bearing in the supplier’s Miller Act lawsuit against the surety and prime contractor (other than, perhaps, any amounts the supplier received would offset any recovery against the surety and prime contractor). 

 

The surety and prime contractor further contended that they should not be bound by the bankruptcy court’s holding that an oral contract existed between the supplier and subcontractor and the liquidated $44,000 amount of the contract.  The court agreed because the prime contractor and surety were not parties to the bankruptcy proceeding and did not have the opportunity to litigate these issues. For this reason, the court denied the supplier’s summary judgment.

 

What does this mean?  This means that the supplier is not capped by the $44,000 amount of its contract determined by the bankruptcy court and could proceed in its Miller Act action based on its original $66,000 amount.  So, while the supplier lost the summary judgment, by doing so, it could technically proceed with more damages than it anticipated.  Sounds like a win! As it pertains to the surety and prime contractor, not only did they give the supplier an argument to potentially recover more damages, but how are they going to defend against the supplier’s claim?  The supplier furnished vessels that were utilized by the subcontractor in the subcontractor’s performance of the work.  The supplier clearly has unreimbursed rental costs.  So, without knowing any other defenses the surety and prime contractor may have, it is uncertain the value they get by trying to relitigate certain issues decided by the bankruptcy court.  Again, that could benefit the supplier.

 

ASIDE ON THE MILLER ACT

 

As an aside, the trial court provided a good discussion as to a claimant’s Miller Act payment bond rights, which is definitely worthy of reiteration:

 

Under the Miller Act, a contractor that is awarded a contract of more than $100,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public work of the United States must provide a payment bond to the government for the protection of all persons supplying labor or materials in the prosecution of the contract work. It was enacted to protect parties such as subcontractors or suppliers who work on federal projects as state-law liens cannot be applied against federally-owned property and traditional state-law remedies are unavailable. The Miller Act is highly remedial in nature and is entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.

***

The elements of a Miller Act claim are: (1) the plaintiff supplied materials in prosecution of the work provided for in the contract; (2) the plaintiff has not been paid; (3) the plaintiff had a good faith belief that the materials were intended for the specified work; and (4) the plaintiff meets the jurisdictional requisites of timely notice and filing.

***

Under the Miller Act, a subcontractor can sue on the payment bond by bringing a direct action against the surety without joining the contractor as a party defendant.

***

The Miller act provides a federal cause of action for which the scope of the remedy as well as the substance of the rights created thereby is a matter of federal not state law. The liability of a Miller Act surety is controlled by federal law because determination of the extent of the liability involves the construction of a federal statute, the Miller Act, under which it was created.

J&B Boat Rental, LLC, supra, at *3, 4 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CONFLICT BETWEEN A SUBCONTRACTOR’S MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND CLAIM AND A PRIME CONTRACTOR’S CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT CLAIM

Posted on by


The recent opinion in U.S. f/u/b/o Marenalley Construction, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2015 WL 1137053 (E.D.Pa. 2015) is a great example as to what could happen when a prime contractor submits a Contract Disputes Act claim to the federal government that includes subcontractor amounts and then a subcontractor simultaneously pursues the same amounts from the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety. The question becomes should the subcontractor’s lawsuit against the Miller Act payment surety be dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the resolution of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.  The ruling in this case held that the subcontractor’s Miller Act claim could proceed, and would not be dismissed or stayed, pending the outcome of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.  This was a great ruling for the subcontractor and obviously puts the prime contractor in an uncomfortable position, to say the least, since it becomes hard to dispute a subcontractor’s claim when the merits of that claim have been packaged (or passed through) to the federal government in a certified Contract Disputes Act claim.

In this case, both the prime contractor and subcontractor agreed that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) caused additional work that increased the cost of the work.  As a result, the prime contractor submitted a Contract Disputes Act claim to the VA that included claims and amounts from subcontractors.  While the prime contractor’s claim was pending with the VA, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety. This was a subcontractor that also had its claims and amounts packaged (or passed through) to the VA in the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.

The prime contractor argued that the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim should be dismissed or stayed pending the resolution of the Contract Disputes Act claim.  In particular, the prime contractor argued that because the subcontract incorporated a dispute resolution clause (that incorporated the requirements of the Contract Disputes Act), the subcontractor was required to exhaust this administrative process before proceeding with a Miller Act payment bond claim.

Dismissal of  Miller Act Payment Bond Claim?

The ruling to deny the prime contractor and surety’s motion to dismiss the Miller Act payment bond claim was an easy decision.  To begin with, a Miller Act payment bond claim needs to be instituted within a year from the subcontractor’s last furnishing so if the court dismissed the claim it would potentially be depriving the subcontractor of its rights under the law without any certainty as to if the subcontractor re-filed the lawsuit it would be within the statute of limitations or the statute of limitations would otherwise be tolled.  And, pursuant to the Miller Act, a subcontractor cannot contractually agree to waive its Miller Act rights before the subcontractor performed any work.  A waiver of Miller Act payment bond rights is only enforceable if the waiver is: 1) in writing, 2) signed by the party waiving its payment bond rights, and 3) “executed after the person whose right is waived has furnished labor or material for use in the performance of the contract.”  See 40 U.S.C. s. 3133.

Stay of Miller Act Payment Bond Claim?

The real determination was whether the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond lawsuit should be stayed until the completion of the prime contractor’s dispute resolution with the VA. The court held No!:

 

“The Miller Act entitles Marenalley [subcontractor] to bring suit ninety days after the completion of its work…not when and if Nason [prime contractor] recovers from the VA. Conditioning Marenalley’s right to recover from the [Miller Act] Payment Bond on the completion of Nason’s CDA [Contract Disputes Act] process would be inconsistent with the terms of the Miller Act.

***

Nason and Zurich [surety] protest that they will be prejudiced in the absence of a stay due to the costs of dual litigation and the risk of inconsistent decisions.  The Court is not overly troubled by these arguments.  Ordinarily the fact that a prime contractor has a claim for the same amount pending under the disputes clause of the [incorporated] prime contract, does not affect Miller Act cases.

***

The CDA process will determine the VA’s liability to Nason.  The VA, however, has no jurisdiction over the amount that Nason must pay Marenalley and no interest in how that amount is determined. Thus, a stay would subject Marenalley to a substantial, indefinite delay as Nason’s claim passes through the administrative process and court review, only to be left at the end of that process to begin again here to litigate its rights against Nason.”

 

Marenalley, supra, at *6 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

How Does a Prime Contractor Account for this Risk?

So, based on this ruling, how does a prime contractor account for this business risk? And, this is a business risk because there may be value to a subcontractor to pursue the Miller Act payment bond claim rather than wait an indefinite period of time for the Contract Disputes Act process to resolve itself and then hope that the prime contractor pays the subcontractor the portion of the subcontractor’s claim that was passed through to the federal government.

 

Well, there is authority that would entitle the prime contractor to a stay of a subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.  But, this authority is predicated on language in the subcontract that any action filed by the subcontractor will be stayed pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

 

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland, Inc., 922 F.Supp. 597, 598 (S.D.Fla. 1996), the subcontract contained the following language:

 

“[s]ubcontractor shall first pursue and fully exhaust [the procedures set forth in the standard disputes clause of the primary contract] before commencing any other action against Contractor for any claims it may have arising out of its performance of the Work herein.”

***

“[Contractor shall] prosecute all claims submitted by Subcontractor under the contractual remedial procedure of the Prime Contract on behalf of and to the extent required by the Subcontractor.”

***

 “[Subcontractor] agree[d] to stay an action or claim against [the prime contractor’s Miller Act bond] pending the complete and final resolution of the Prime Contract’s contractual remedial procedure.”

 

Because the subcontractor failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the court dismissed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim.  Importantly, this case was decided before there were amendments to the Miller Act that now prevents a subcontractor from waiving a Miller Act payment bond claim prior to performing work.  Thus, if this case were decided today, the court likely would have stayed the Miller Act payment bond claim instead of dismissing it unless, of course, it was clear that the statute of limitations for pursuing a Miller Act payment bond claim would be tolled pending the exhaustion of the administrative remedies.

 

Similarly, in U.S. v. Dick/Morganti, 2007 WL 3231717 (N.D.Cal. 2007), the prime contractor and surety moved to stay a subcontractor’s payment bond claim based on the following subcontract language:

 

“If the Owner [GSA] and the Contractor [Dick/Morganti], pursuant to the General Contract or by agreement, submit any dispute, controversy, or claim between them to arbitration or some other dispute resolution procedure specified in the General Contract and such a matter involves or relates to a dispute, controversy, or claim between the Contractor and the Subcontractor, Subcontractor agrees …to stay any action filed by the Subcontractor until the dispute resolution and appeals process between the Contractor and the Owner is exhausted.”

 

The prime contractor argued it “intended” to submit a claim to the federal government [GSA] that will include the subcontractor’s amounts and, as such, the provision should operate to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim.  The court agreed provided that the prime contractor did actually submit the claim.

 

Thus, a prime contractor should absolutely incorporate language in a subcontract consistent with the language in these decisions that reflects that any action filed by the subcontractor, including an action against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety, will be stayed pending the complete resolution of any dispute resolution between the prime contractor and federal government that involves or includes the claims and amounts sought by the subcontractor. 

 

And a subcontractor, even if this language is included in the subcontract, should still move forward and timely file any Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

STAYING MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT PENDING ARBITRATION

Posted on by


In a prior posting, I discussed how federal courts have discretion to stay a subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety pending an arbitration between the subcontractor and general contractor.  This posting did not pertain to a Miller Act payment bond.  However, low and behold, this same rationale would apply to a subcontractor’s lawsuit against a Miller Act payment bond.

 

In U.S. f/u/b/o John Jamar Construction Services v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, 2015 WL 757858 (S.D.Tex. 2015), a subcontractor sued the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond.  The prime contractor countered that the subcontractor materially breached the subcontract causing it to terminate the subcontractor for default. 

 

The subcontract contained an arbitration provision and the prime contractor served an arbitration demand on the prime contractor.  The surety was not bound by the arbitration provision (as it was not a party to the subcontract) but moved to stay the Miller Act lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration between the prime contrator and subcontractor.  The federal district court agreed with the surety and stayed the litigation because the factual and legal issues between the prime contractor and subcontractor substantially overlapped with the subcontractor’s claims against the Miller Act payment bond surety.

 

Accordingly, if you are a prime contractor and involved in a dispute with a subcontractor where your subcontract contains an arbitration provision–such as in this case where the prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default–there is little downside in demanding arbitration pursuant to the subcontract.  If the subcontractor initiates a Miller Act lawsuit, there is authority that the lawsuit will be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

 

Conversely, if you are a subcontractor and involved in a dispute with a prime contractor where your subcontract contains an arbitration provision, there is upside in moving forward with the Miller Act lawsuit to ensure the lawsuit is filed within the one-year limitations period.  However, if there is concern the prime contractor will move to demand arbitration under the subcontract (as a means to stay the Miller Act litigation), you may want to consider simultaneously moving to demand arbitration against the prime contractor to preserve your status as the claimant (plaintiff) in the arbitration.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND TERMINATION FOR DEFAULTS: SURETY TAKEOVER AGREEMENTS, TENDER AGREEMENTS, ETC.

Posted on by


On federal government construction projects, the prime contractor provides the government with a performance bond (pursuant to the Miller Act) guarantying the prime contractor’s performance under the prime contract.   Under normal course and in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), the performance bond is triggered when the government terminates the prime contractor for default and then looks to the performance bond surety to remedy the default by completing the defaulting prime contractor’s contractual obligations.  (See FAR 49.402-3 regarding the government’s procedure to terminate the prime contractor for default and put the contractor and surety on notice.) 

 

Subpart 49.4 of FAR deals with termination for defaults.  Prime contractors as well as sureties should familiarze themselves with this subpart especially if they received notification from the contracting officer of the possibility of a terminatin for default or the notices seem to indicate that the terminatiion for default is imminent.

 

Let’s presume the contracting officer moves forward and terminates the prime contractor for default or the termination is imminent.  Now what?   Clearly, the contracting officer will be looking to the prime contractor’s performance bond surety to remedy the default.    Below are considertaions that will be explored and are the reasons why prime contractors and sureties in this situation should absolutely ensure they are consulting with counsel.

 

A. Takeover Agreements

 

One common option under FAR  49.404 that can be implemented is a surety-takeover agreement with the government (see below).  This is when the surety takes over the contractual obligations of the prime contract.  Typically, the surety will enter into a takeover agreement with the government that outlines the obligations of the takeover and will enter into a separate contract with the completion contractor the surety engages to complete its defaulting prime contractor’s scope of work.  While FAR ideally prefers a tripartite takeover agreement with the government, surety, and defaulted prime contractor, this generally does not happen with a prime contractor that challenges the termination for default and looks to convert the termination into one for convenience. 

 

49.404  Surety-takeover agreements.

(a) The procedures in this section apply primarily, but not solely, to fixed-price construction contracts terminated for default.

(b) Since the surety is liable for damages resulting from the contractor’s default, the surety has certain rights and interests in the completion of the contract work and application of any undisbursed funds. Therefore, the contracting officer must consider carefully the surety’s proposals for completing the contract. The contracting officer must take action on the basis of the Government’s interest, including the possible effect upon the Government’s rights against the surety.

(c) The contracting officer should permit surety offers to complete the contract, unless the contracting officer believes that the persons or firms proposed by the surety to complete the work are not competent and qualified or the proposal is not in the best interest of the Government.

(d) There may be conflicting demands for the defaulting contractor’s assets, including unpaid prior earnings (retained percentages and unpaid progress estimates). Therefore, the surety may include a “takeover” agreement in its proposal, fixing the surety’s rights to payment from those funds. The contracting officer may (but not before the effective date of termination) enter into a written agreement with the surety. The contracting officer should consider using a tripartite agreement among the Government, the surety, and the defaulting contractor to resolve the defaulting contractor’s residual rights, including assertions to unpaid prior earnings.

(e) Any takeover agreement must require the surety to complete the contract and the Government to pay the surety’s costs and expenses up to the balance of the contract price unpaid at the time of default, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Any unpaid earnings of the defaulting contractor, including retained percentages and progress estimates for work accomplished before termination, must be subject to debts due the Government by the contractor, except to the extent that the unpaid earnings may be used to pay the completing surety its actual costs and expenses incurred in the completion of the work, but not including its payments and obligations under the payment bond given in connection with the contract.

(2) The surety is bound by contract terms governing liquidated damages for delays in completion of the work, unless the delays are excusable under the contract.

(3) If the contract proceeds have been assigned to a financing institution, the surety must not be paid from unpaid earnings, unless the assignee provides written consent.

(4) The contracting officer must not pay the surety more than the amount it expended completing the work and discharging its liabilities under the defaulting contractor’s payment bond. Payments to the surety to reimburse it for discharging its liabilities under the payment bond of the defaulting contractor must be only on authority of—

(i) Mutual agreement among the Government, the defaulting contractor, and the surety;

(ii) Determination of the Comptroller General as to payee and amount; or

(iii) Order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

B.  Tender Agreements

 

Another option the surety can implement is by tendering a completion contractor to the government for the government to complete the work.  Oftentimes the surety will obtain pricing to complete the defaulting prime contractor’s scope of work.  The surety will then tender a completion contractor to the government so that the government can hire this contractor directly.  The surety will also tender the difference between the balance of the defaulted prime contractor’s contract amount and the completion contractor’s contract amount to complete the work.  (For example, if the balance of the defaulted prime contract is Twenty Million but it will cost a completion contractor Twenty Five Million to complete the defaulted prime contractor’s scope of work, the surety will tender the additional Five Million.)  A tender agreement is generally entered into between the surety and the government and outlines the parameters of the tender including monetary responsibilities of the surety. 

 

C.  Government Completion (if surety does not takeover or tender)

 

FAR 49.405 gives the government authority to engage a completion contractor if the surety does not arrange for the completion of the defaulted prime contractor’s scope of work (see below).  If the government moves forward with this option, it will certainly look to the surety for all costs it incurs associated with the prime contractor’s default and any delay associated with bringing a completion contractor on board.

 

49.405  Completion by another contractor.

If the surety does not arrange for completion of the contract, the contracting officer normally will arrange for completion of the work by awarding a new contract based on the same plans and specifications. The new contract may be the result of sealed bidding or any other appropriate contracting method or procedure. The contracting officer shall exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the lowest price available for completion.

  

D. Procedures Government Can Utilize Instead of Termination for Default

 

FAR 49.402-4 identifies certain procedures that the government can utilize instead of terminating the prime contractor for default, although these procedures are generally implemented after the prime contractor and surety are on notice of an impending termination for default (see below).   The government is probably not going to move forward with these procedures unless its rights are reserved against the prime contractor and performance bond for any resultant damages (see FAR 49.406 below) associated with defaults asserted by the government against the prime contractor (e.g., liquidated damages for delays,  correction of deficient work, etc.).  If these procedures are considered and utilized, there is a good chance the procedure was suggested by the prime contractor and surety as a protocol to best mitigate potential damages asserted by the government.   (By way of example, one option a surety can present is to agree to fund the prime contractor through completion in order to keep the project moving forward with the contractor most familiar with the scope of work.)

 

49.402-4  Procedure in lieu of termination for default.

The following courses of action, among others, are available to the contracting officer in lieu of termination for default when in the Government’s interest:

(a) Permit the contractor, the surety, or the guarantor, to continue performance of the contract under a revised delivery schedule.

(b) Permit the contractor to continue performance of the contract by means of a subcontract or other business arrangement with an acceptable third party, provided the rights of the Government are adequately preserved.

(c) If the requirement for the supplies and services in the contract no longer exists, and the contractor is not liable to the Government for damages as provided in 49.402-7, execute a no-cost termination settlement agreement using the formats in 49.603-6 and 49.603-7 as a guide.

 

49.406  Liquidation of liability.

(1) The contract provides that the contractor and the surety are liable to the Government for resultant damages. The contracting officer shall use all retained percentages of progress payments previously made to the contractor and any progress payments due for work completed before the termination to liquidate the contractor’s and the surety’s liability to the Government. If the retained and unpaid amounts are insufficient, the contracting officer shall take steps to recover the additional sum from the contractor and the surety.

 

E. Preservation of Surety’s Rights

 

When a surety takesover the completion of the work, tenders a completion contractor, or even funds the original prime contractor through completion, the surety will do so while preserving its rights.  In other words,  a surety will want to best preserve rights to pursue potential claims against the government while contemporaneously mitigating its exposure under the performance bond through the takeover, tender, or funding of the completion work.  See, e.g., Transamerica, Ins. v. U.S.,  31 Fed.Cl. 532 (1994) (finding surety can pursue equitable subrogation claim against government for funds held by government when surety tendered and paid completion contractor); see also In re Appeal of Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., ASBCA No. 50657, 2000 WL 246620 (2000) (“When a terminated contractor assigns such [pre-takeover / tender] claims to the surety to which assignment the contracting officer consents, or incorporates such an assignment in novation or takeover [or tender] agreement executed by the contracting officer, the surety has standing to prosecute such claims before the Board.”); In re Hackney Group, ASBCA No. 51453, 2000 WL 655950 (2000) (surety’s argument that it has standing to assert defaulted prime contractor’s pre-takeover claims against government based on surety’s indemnity agreement with  prime contractor failed since government was not a party to indemnity agreement and never consented to prime contractor’s assignment of pre-takeover claims to surety).

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.