|
|
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.
|
|