Practice/Industry Group Overview
Since the Firm was established in 1988, our attorneys have represented every potential party to a dispute on a construction project, including owners, developers, sureties, design professionals, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. We have litigated, arbitrated and mediated cases from Maine to Florida and from New Jersey to Hawaii. Over the years, we have worked for our clients on virtually every type of construction project including: major office buildings, stadiums, hospitals, shopping centers, condominiums, government buildings, bridges, water treatment plants, petro-chemical plants, highways, airports, factories, and schools.
With our first hand knowledge of the construction industry, our attorneys are equipped to assess problems quickly and assist in the tactical and strategic decisions that can make the difference between a project wrought with problems and one that is successfully completed. We are involved in all phases of construction projects, and our attorneys work with our clients to answer day-to-day questions with respect to:
- Contract negotiations and document preparation
- Bid protests and bid withdrawals on public projects
- Complex operational and financial issues that arise during a project
- Delay, disruption, and acceleration claims process
- Surety bond claims
- Contracting on the Federal, State, and local levels
- Construction changes and differing site conditions
- Mechanics' and Construction Lien Laws
- Government procurement and Miller Act issues
- Corporate compliance and dispute procedures
- Affirmative action and hiring goals on construction projects
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:
Contemporaneous Documentation is Not Always a Good Thing
Michael H. Payne, October 15, 2014
There is no question that documentation is an important part in the resolution of any construction dispute. Particularly contemporaneous documents - documents that are created at the time that events occur. Quality control reports, daily logs, and timely letters all fall into the...
Court Upholds Rights of Small Business Dredging Contractors
Michael H. Payne,Robert G. Ruggieri, October 14, 2014
In a bid protest argued by our firm before the United States Court of Federal Claims on September 23, 2014, the Court ruled in favor of our client, RLB Contracting, Inc., (RLB) in a matter involving the designation of the dredging exception to NAICS code 237990, which is for “Other Heavy and...
Update on Discoverability of Attorney-Expert Communications
Matthew L. Erlanger,Jennifer M. Horn, July 31, 2014
On April 29, 2014 an evenly divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital upheld a lower court ruling holding that communications between a party’s attorney and a party’s expert witness are exempt from disclosure during discovery. This case was previously...
Amendments to Ohio P3 Legislation Add Bonding Requirements with a Twist
Lisa M. Wampler, July 21, 2014
It is no secret within the construction industry that public-private partnership (P3) project delivery has recently become all the rage. The demand for infrastructure repairs and improvements is high, and the public dollars needed to fund them are scarce. P3 projects incorporating public and...
Supreme Court's Pass on Berks Products Impacts PA Contractors
Jason A. Copley,Daniel E. Fierstein, April 23, 2014
Counterintuitive as it may seem, courts can exert significant influence by deciding not to consider a case. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did just that on April 1, 2014 when it decided not to consider an appeal in the Berks Products Corp. v. Arch Insurance Co. case (Berks). The underlying case...
The Differing Site Conditions Clause Is Alive and Well
Michael H. Payne, February 26, 2014
Thanks to a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Metcalf vs. U.S., the protection afforded by the Differing Site Conditions clause has been reaffirmed. Although the Court primarily addressed the requirement that federal agencies must demonstrate good faith and fair...