Change of Address - Visit our New Site

WCL has moved. This site will not be updated any longer. Instead, please visit us at http://www.waconstructionlaw.com/. Thanks!

SnoCo Council Taps Brakes on Rural Development

Fireworks of a sort at yesterday's Snohomish County Council meeting, where by a 3-2 vote the Council adopted a somewhat more restrictive GMA development blueprint than was anticipated. http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/12/22/100loc_a1growth001.cfm

What 1-901 Means for Job Sites

The AGC is up with a summary of what Initiative 901 (requiring work places and enclosed public spaces to be 100% smoke free) means for contractors and job sites. http://agcwa.com/Public/newsletter/2005/1205/smokingban.asp

GC/CM Report Card

In 1991, Washington first authorized the GC/CM delivery system for certain public works. Since that time, about 53 major projects have been built under this model. The Legislature wanted to know how things are going. The attached study gives the report card. http://www1.leg.wa.gov/reports/05-9.pdf

Court Affirms Judgment Prohibiting Use of City Light Money to Fund Public Art

Division I wasn't impressed by City Light's claim that spending $3 million on public art had the required "close nexus" to the agency's primary task of supplying electrical power: "The City's evidence consists only of broad, general statements about the applicability of the disputed projects to the goals of conservation and education without any explanation as to how the projects furthered these goals." http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=551043MAJ.

The case arises from a challenge to the validity of Seattle Municpal Code Section 20.32, which requires City Light and other city departments to allocate 1% of budget for their capital construction projects within Seattle for the support of public art. The Court ruled that while certain art purchases are OK, "the trial court correctly prohibited the City from relying on conservation education as a pretext for art projects whose purpose was to benefit the general public."

Division I Rules Arbitration Award Does Not Accrue Interest Akin to Judgment

Division I holds that arbitration award is akin to jury verdict rather than final judgment, and thus does not accrue prejudgment interest. http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=558676MAJ

Court to Contractor: Administration Costs Not Compensable under Oral Cost-Plus Contract

Those who dare to contract on an oral, cost-plus basis are subject to the rules made by the court to determine exactly what costs are included -- and excluded -- from the definition of reimbursable cost. And in Washington, despite the unfortunate frequency with which owners and contractors resort to this informal process, there is precious little law on the issue.

In Keever & Associates v. Randall, 129 Wn. App. 733 (2005). Division III recently held that a GC's administrative time is not separately chargeable to the owner as a matter of law under a cost-plus arrangement. Instead, such administration time is subsumed by the "plus" portion of the cost-plus formula.

Taken to the extreme, this holding could mean bad things for GCs under the oral cost-plus regime. For example, it could mean the GC may not separately charge for its superintendent or project manager time. A literal reading of "cost" for this purpose might, the Court seems to suggest, be limited to the expenses paid to third parties such as subcontractors or vendor.

Busy Cranes Are Happy Cranes

The most intriguing part of this article is not that the region's tower cranes are booked up, but that they are booked up largely on residential and mixed use projects - not office towers. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002678649_cranes12.html