This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Contractors have a means of shifting the risk of non-payment by the owner to its subcontractor by including a certain payment provisions in the subcontract agreement. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that a “pay if paid” clause in a subcontract was not ambiguous and, therefore, enforceable against the subcontractor.
In a perfect world, general contract presents the subcontract document to the subcontractor, and that sub has its lawyer review the contract to see if the terms can be negotiated so that its a fair document for all involved. There is no need to waste taxpayer money to draft, argue, and pass bills such as these.
Contractors have a means of shifting the risk of non-payment by the owner to its subcontractor by including a certain payment provisions in the subcontract agreement. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that a “pay if paid” clause in a subcontract was not ambiguous and, therefore, enforceable against the subcontractor.
For this reason, construction professionals must find better ways to craft and negotiate agreements. She recalls her experience speaking with a fellow attorney who had to go through a 129-page subcontract that could have been cut down to ten pages. The shifting of risk and liabilities is a very common practice when drafting contracts.
A substantial challenge faced by professionals preparing construction specifications for design-build projects is most master specifications were developed for traditional DBB or its ‘close relation,’ design-negotiate-build (DNB).
The underlying dispute related to a subcontract agreement on a construction project located on Fort Hood in Texas. The general contractor tried to get out of the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, tried to get the case transferred to Virginia based upon a forum selection clause in the subcontract agreement.
The dispute relates to a subcontract agreement on a construction project located on Fort Hood in Texas. The general contractor tried to get out of the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, tried to get the case transferred to Virginia based upon a forum selection clause in the subcontract agreement. 2012) cert.
When contracts and subcontracts are negotiated, it is common for written drafts and redrafts to circulate between the parties, sometimes with a letter of intent to enter into a contract thrown into the mix, and sometimes with competing forms being used – a proposal or bid on one side, an expansive formal contract on the other.
A substantial challenge faced by professionals preparing construction specifications for design build projects is most master specifications were developed for traditional DBB or its ‘close relation,’ design-negotiate-build (DNB). Greater challenges arise when adapting DBB source documents for design-build.
Even with these clauses, the government had to negotiate in a sole-source environment and was often unable to realize the economies and efficiencies afforded by vigorous competition among vendors in the marketplace. The prospective offerors were scheduled in groups in four separate half-day sessions to review the draft RFP.
Program regulations are currently being drafted to include the expanded definition for “Advanced Manufacturers.” The terms are negotiated specific to each firm’s individual needs and situation with a maximum limit of 3% of Capital Expenditures. ” For more information, please visit this link. FINANCING .
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 116,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content