Law Talk - PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
By Sam K. Abdulaziz
Attorney at Law
Contractors should know that doing work
on a Public Works project has significant bidding requirements as well as
other requirements that are not the same as Private Works of Improvement.
The submission of bids and the bidding process is completely different.
In this case, Mitchell Engineering, Inc.
submitted a bid to the Sacramento County Sanitation District to be the prime
contractor on a Public Works project. In turn, Affholder, Inc. submitted a
bid to Mitchell to do tunnel work for nearly $7.5 million as Mitchell’s
subcontractor. Mitchell listed Affholder in its bid. The District awarded
Mitchell the contract.
One of the aspects of being a listed
subcontractor on a Public Works project is that when the public entity
awards the contract, in order for the prime contractor to change
subcontractors, the public entity must approve the change.
In this case, in an effort to cut costs,
and share in the savings and before entering into the subcontract with
Affholder, but after listing Affholder, Mitchell submitted to the District a
Construction Incentive Change Proposal (CICP) to change the method of
tunneling. Affholder demanded to be part of the CICP negotiations and
threatened legal action if Affholder was not given the subcontract. It was
clear that the change order called for performance of new or additional work
not within the original specifications. Affholder refused to submit a new
bid under the change order.
The District deleted Affholder’s bids,
and Affholder filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging that Mitchell
violated the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. Evidently,
Affholder alleged that since he was the listed subcontractor he should have
gotten the job. The Court disagreed.
The Court held that under section 4107 (
c ) of the Subcontracting Act, if a change order calls for
performance of new work that can “reasonably be construed as outside
the scope of the originally specified work” the prime contractor may
subcontract out for that work. The court held that this was new or
additional work not within the original specifications. Affholder was only
eliminated as a subcontractor after refusing to submit a new bid under the
change order.
Return to Year 2008
Topics
The information and comments throughout this website are intended to be of a general nature. Our comments/advice should not be relied upon without your seeking the aid and advice of legal counsel who will have the opportunity to take the time to research all your issues.
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman provides this information as a service to its friends &
clients. It is of a general nature and should not be used as a substitute for
specific legal advice. Any and all information set forth on our website relates
solely to California law. The information is not relevant and not applicable in
any other state or jurisdiction.
The firm can be reached at:
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman
P.O. Box 15458
North Hollywood, CA 91615-5458
(818) 760-2000
Facsimile (818) 760-3908 or by E-Mail at
Info@AGRLaw.net
Please note that any information you provide to
us via e-mail may be viewed by others and therefore, it is not a privileged
communication.
Copyright © 2006 by Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman. All rights reserved.
|