APRIL
2005
 


CONSULTANT FOUND LIABLE FOR
RECOMMENDING A NON-COMPLIANT TENDER

The latest significant event in tendering law is a case in which a consultant was found liable to an owner for recommending the owner accept a bid which did not comply with the Information for Tenderers. The court found that if a consultant had an obligation to oversee the call for tenders and review them, then it also had the responsibility to at least identify, if not outright reject, the non-compliant bid, or recommend the owners seek legal advice in that regard. This case underscores the importance of consultants recommending that the owner obtain legal advice with respect to the content of the invitation to bid prior to disseminating the tender documents to prospective bidders and with respect to the acceptability of any bids which may be non-compliant with the Instructions to Bidders. Given the fact that many, if not most, bids are imperfect in one way or another, this case represents another argument in favour of having an experienced construction lawyer on the development team.

The case in question is Tectonic Infrastructure Inc. v. Middlesex Centre (Township), a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered in 2004. The tender in question was a call for tenders by the Township for the construction of water mains and roads. The contract was awarded to a company which was interpreted as the lowest bidder at the time the contract was awarded. However, the successful bidder had inserted handwritten additions to the Form of Tender and various other matters the bidder felt the owner had failed to take into account. In the end, the court found that the additions by the successful bidder were not called for, that they were not clear and unambiguous as to price, that they did not constitute substantial compliance, and were not formalities which could be waived by the owners and, therefore, found that the bid was non-compliant. The court also found that the Plaintiff’s bid was the only other bid under consideration and would have been accepted, but for the non-compliant bid. As a result, the court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of profits it would have realized had it been awarded the construction contract.

The court also found that the consultant was required to draft and prepare the tender documents to suit the project, to analyze and evaluate the tenders, and to make a recommendation with respect to which tenders should be accepted. The owner claimed an indemnity from its consulting engineer. The court found that although the Information for Tenderers and the Form of Tender were standard forms supplied to the consulting engineers, it was the responsibility of the consulting engineers to edit the forms necessary for the particular work going out for tender. The court found that the consulting engineers had an obligation to oversee the call for tenders and review them and the responsibility to at least identify, if not outright reject, the non-compliant bid or recommend the owner seek legal advice in that regard. The consulting engineers failed to identify this effective bid as non-compliant and by recommending it to the owner, the consulting engineers held it out as being compliant. The basis for the finding was negligent misrepresentation arising out of the duty of care owed by the consulting engineers to the Township. The consulting engineers were found liable to the Township for the full amount of the damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

The case highlights one of the weaknesses in the construction industry, which is the reluctance on the part of the developing owners and their professional consultants to obtain legal advice at the appropriate times during the construction process. It is not surprising that developers want to minimize costs in an effort to enhance the profit margin on a project. However, it is surprising that the developer’s consultants would not encourage and insist upon legal advice with respect to the content of the Instructions to Bidders and the acceptability of the tendered bids. By highlighting this weakness in the industry, perhaps this case will serve a useful tool for encouraging all parties to seek legal advice when it is obviously needed to avoid a dispute, rather than waiting for much more expensive legal advice after the dispute has arisen.

D. Bruce Gleig

In our next edition of the Legal Framework  (scheduled for August 2005) we will include another article on this topic, focussing on the liability of consultants, to owners, arising from post-tender “bid shopping.”

 

CONSULTANTS’ INSURANCE

Consultants are continually exposed to the possibility of claims being made against them for negligent acts, errors, or omissions in connection with the services they provide.

In order to avoid the financial peril that is commonly associated with these claims, consultants must consider obtaining liability insurance.  Liability insurance allows the consultant to rely on the insurance provider to pay any court awarded damages or negotiated settlements up to the limit of the policy, less any deductible.  In addition, the insurer has a duty to defend an insured’s claim until the policy’s limit is exhausted, and to pay for any legal defence costs associated with a legal claim.

On April 22, 2005, Clark Wilson LLP presented a seminar on issues related to consultants contracts which included a discussion of the following:

Professional Liability Insurance Policies

Professional liability insurance is designed to protect consultants and consulting organisations from financial loss and civil liability for negligent acts, errors or omissions arising out of the performance of professional services.  There are numerous sources of professional liability claims that the consultant must consider, including:

·    owners, where damages from deficiencies in the design or the work incur damages

·        contractors, where, as a result of delays or additional costs, incur damages;

·        third parties, where damages are incurred as a result of problems during construction or from defects  after completion; and

·        other consultants, where additional costs are incurred as a result of delays or changes.

It is important for professionals to understand what is typically covered, and what is not.  In general, professional liability policies provide coverage for the cost of losses associated with situations involving professional liability. These policies also cover the cost to defend an action, which can be substantial even if liability is not found. 

Project Specific Professional Liability Insurance

Another type of professional liability insurance is project insurance, or project specific liability insurance.  This type of insurance is applicable only to the particular project for which it was purchased.

These policies typically provide professional liability coverage to the group of design professionals for claims arising from a specific construction project. Project policies are most appropriate for  larger, more complex projects where the design team is composed of a head consultant firm and other sub consultants.

Practice Insurance – Typical Exclusions

Architects and engineers can purchase a "practice" policy that applies to all of the work in a consultant’s practice, except for the work which is expressly excluded by the particular policy’s wording.  Practice policies cover errors, omissions or negligent acts in the performance of professional services.  Typical exclusions include: fraud; cost estimates; projects in which the consultant has a financial interest; consultant services which are not part of the insured’s profession; fines, penalties and punitive damages; construction activities performed by the consultant; pollution; and express warranties, guarantees and indemnities.

General Liability Insurance Policies

General liability insurance protects against claims arising from non-professional activities and business operations. It will protect an organization in the event the organization or any of its employees cause bodily injury or property damage to others and becomes legally obligated to pay damages.  Most general liability policies issued to consultants contain exclusions for professional liability claims and other contract performance claims.

Wrap-up insurance is a form of project insurance and is a type of general liability policy. It allows owners and contractors the convenience of dealing with one insurer for claims arising from general liability claims associated with one individual project.  Wrap-up insurance usually provides all project participants with high limit insurance.

Design Build Endorsement

Consultants who are involved in design/build projects may seek a design/build endorsement on their practice insurance policy. 

Design/ build policies commonly cover only the design professional team.  The design/ build endorsement usually modifies a number of exclusion clauses found in a standard practice policy and replaces them with clauses more applicable to construction activities.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that an insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured. Technically, the contracting parties can agree to insure anything and everything. The realities of risk, however, have caused insurers to typically not insure certain activities or events. A recent example is the water ingress exclusion applicable to E&O policies. Architects and engineers should also keep in mind that the broader the coverage, the more the insurance will cost at the outset.

The key is to find the right balance: obtaining insurance for foreseeable risk at a reasonable price. Effective risk management means not only getting insurance, but getting the right type of insurance and coverage in the circumstance, with the right insurer, for the right price.

Samantha Ip

    

BUILDERS LIEN ACT - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Can a material supplier claim a builders lien, even if it does not provide labour?

Yes.  Under the older version of the Builders Lien Act, “materialmen” were defined separately from contractors.  However, in the current Builders Lien Act, the material supplier is included in the definitions of contractor and subcontractor.

A material supplier may file a claim of lien for the unpaid price provided that the following criteria are met:

·        The material is movable property.

·        The material was delivered to the land on which the improvement is located.

·        The material must be intended to become part of the improvement.

Note as well that a material supplier includes companies which rent equipment without an operator.  So, for example, a company that rents equipment (such as jackhammers, propane heaters, etc.) to another company for use at the subject property, will likely have lien rights for the price of equipment rental.

What is a Notice of Interest?

A Notice of Interest is a document which is filed in the Land Title Office by the owner of the land.  The Builders Lien Act provides that if the Notice of Interest is filed before a potential lien claimant provides work or services to the land, then the owner is not liable for liens on its land, except for work or services provided at the owner’s express request.

You will often find a Notice of Interest filed on commercial property.  This will protect the owner from responsibility for lien payments if one of its tenants hires a contractor for tenant improvements, but does not pay the full amount owing.  As an owner, it is a simple, cost efficient way to provide protection from claims of lien in such circumstances.  If you are a contractor hired by a tenant, you should consider adding a title search to your credit inquiries before signing the contract.  If there is a Notice of Interest filed by the owner, you may wish to have alternate credit arrangements made with the tenant.  Conversely, if you are an owner and one of your tenants is undertaking repairs or renovations to the property for which you do not want to be held responsible, you should consider filing a Notice of Interest.

The project has been ongoing for quite a while and there is a lot of money in the holdback account.  Who is entitled to the interest that has accrued to the holdback?

Unless the parties otherwise agree, interest accrued on the holdback during the holdback period belongs to the owner: interest accrued after the holdback period accrues to the contractor to whom the holdback belongs.

Where a contract is relatively small, the amount of interest will be nominal.  However, where the contract is for a substantial amount of money and the construction spans a year or more, the interest can be substantial and much of it will belong to the owner.  As such, parties to a construction contract may want to give some thought as to who should receive the interest where it is expected to be a significant amount of money.  The parties must, however, reach their agreement on the division of interest accruing on the holdback prior to the signing of the construction contract. 

Amy Mortimore

Adam Zasada

 

UPCOMING BUILDERS LIENS SEMINARS

Adam Zasada and Amy Mortimore are speaking at two upcoming builders liens seminars.  The first seminar, to be held at UBC Robson Square on May 26, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., will first provide a general overview of the Builders Lien Act, and will then focus on recent developments in builders liens – primarily through answering a number of questions frequently asked by contractors and owners.  This seminar will be simultaneously broadcast through the internet, making it accessible to people outside of the Lower Mainland.  More information on this seminar is available on our website at www.cwilson.com/seminars/ or through Rita at Dye & Durham: 604.713.7167.

The second seminar at which Amy Mortimore and Adam Zasada are speaking will be held at the Four Seasons Vancouver Hotel on June 9, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.  This seminar will also provide information on recent developments in builders lien law, but in addition will focus on the technical aspects of the Builders Lien Act in order to assist owners and developers, and architects and engineers in their roles as consultants, on construction projects. More information is available on our website at www.cwilson.com/seminars/.  We hope to see you at our seminars!

 

CORRECTION

In the February 2005 Legal Framework, in my article entitled “Construction Contracts - Standard Forms” I referred to the Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) as being “of the Canadian Construction Association”.  That is not correct and I want to thank Mr. Michael Ernest of the Architectural Institute of BC for pointing out my error.  The CCDC is a national joint committee responsible of the development, production and review of standard Canadian construction contracts, forms and guides. Formed in 1974, the CCDC is today made up of appointed members of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, Canadian Construction Association, Construction Specifications Canada, and Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.  The committee also includes one owner representative from each of the public and private sectors and an ex-officio member lawyer from the Canadian Bar Association, Construction Law Section.

I also noted in my article, somewhat editorially, that “interestingly enough, no subcontractor association is a member of the CCDC”.  Mr. Ernest informed me that one of the “contractor” positions on the CCDC is filled by a person who represents the trade contractors.

In additional to the above, we have also learned:

·        the CCDC is actively developing a pair of Construction Management contracts, one for the Construction Manager as agent/advisor and the other for the Construction Manager at Risk; and

·        the CCDC has published a brand new CCDC 23 guide document, which outlines the process of soliciting and evaluating construction bids and awarding the construction contract.

Hannelie Stockenstrom

  

UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION LAW GROUP
SEMINARS IN 2005
 

May 20 - Tender Contracts and RFPs
Presented by Hannelie Stockenstrom and Bruce Gleig

June 9 - Builders Liens for Owners and Consultants
Presented by Amy Mortimore and Adam Zasada

October 7 - Design-Build Contracts
Presented by Bruce Gleig and Hannelie Stockenstrom

      November 18 -  Risk Management Before and During Construction
      Presented by Bruce Gleig

 

ADD OR REMOVE FROM MAILING LIST

If you would like to be added or removed from this mailing service, please send requests to webmaster@cwilson.com.


 

QUESTIONS OF COMMENTS

For more information on any article contained in this issue of Clark Wilson LLP’s Legal Framework or any construction matter, please contact any member of our Construction Group. Also, if there are any topics which you would like to see addressed in future issues, please contact the Editor of Legal Framework, Stephanie Jackson, and let her know.





Allyson Baker
Tel. 604.891.7732
E. alb@cwilson.com



Glen Boswall
Tel. 604.643.3125
E. rgb@cwilson.com



Bruce Gleig
Tel. 604.643.3178
E. dbg@cwilson.com



Keri Grenier
Tel. 604.643.3166
E. ktg@cwilson.com



Samantha Ip
Tel. 604.643.3172
E. ssi@cwilson.com



Stephanie Jackson
Tel. 604.643.3141
E. saj@cwilson.com



Amy Mortimore
Tel. 604.643.3177
E. aam@cwilson.com



Derek Mullan, Q.C.
Tel. 604.643.3162
E. djm@cwilson.com



Roy Nieuwenburg
Tel. 604.643.3112
E. ran@cwilson.com



Hannelie Stockenstrom
Tel. 604.643.3145
E. hgs@cwilson.com



Adam Zasada
Tel. 604.891.7742
E. aiz@cwilson.com

 


800.885 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC  Canada  V6C 3H1
Tel. 604.687.5700
Fax. 604.687.6314

Barristers & Solicitors
Patent & Trade-Mark Agents


Questions or Comments?

For more information on any article contained in this issue of Clark Wilson LLP’s Legal Framework or on any Construction Group matter, please contact any member of our Construction Group.

Construction Group Members
Lawyer Direct Telephone
& Email Info
Allyson Baker T. 604.891.7732
alb@cwilson.com
Glen Boswall T. 604.643.3125
rgb@cwilson.com
Bruce Gleig T. 604.643.3147
dbg@cwilson.com
Keri Grenier T. 604.643.3166
ktg@cwilson.com
Samantha Ip T. 604.643.3172
ssi@cwilson.com
Stephanie Jackson T. 604.643.3141
saj@cwilson.com
Amy Mortimore T. 604.643.3177
aam@cwilson.com
Derek Mullan, Q.C. T. 604.643.3162
djm@cwilson.com
Roy Nieuwenburg T. 604.643.3112
ran@cwilson.com
Hannelie Stockenstrom T. 604.643.3145
hgs@cwilson.com
Adam Zasada T. 604.891.7742
aiz@cwilson.com

   
Clark Wilson LLP’s Legal Framework is published periodically by the Construction Group at Clark Wilson LLP. The information contained in
this newsletter should not be treated by readers as legal advice and ought not to be relied on without detailed legal counsel being sought.
Editor: Stephanie Jackson © 2005, Clark Wilson LLP. All Rights Reserved.