NJ Public Works Contractors Beware – Pay Special Attention When Submitting Your Public Works Contractor Registration
May 26, 2026 —
Levi W. Barrett & Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.While it is always important to be careful when making submissions to government agencies, recent activity by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) reveals considerably increased scrutiny in connection with contractors renewing their New Jersey Public Works Registration. Extra care when completing the registration renewal process is warranted, because the consequences of a misstep can be significant and disruptive.
The New Jersey Public Works Contractor Registration Act requires all contractors bidding on or engaging in construction-related public works projects to register with the NJDOL. This registration, which must be resubmitted every 1-2 years, requires contractors to make a number of detailed disclosures relating to, among other things, the entity’s ownership structure, prior state and federal labor law violations, details regarding interests in other businesses, unlawful acts by owners/officers, and participation in apprenticeship programs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Surety Requiring Collateral Security Under General Agreement of Indemnity
September 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn order to procure bonds (payment and performance bonds), you need to sign a General Agreement of Indemnity (referred to as the “GAI”) with the surety (bonding company). It does not matter the surety issuing the bonds, the terms and conditions in the General Agreement of Indemnity are largely consistent. These terms and conditions are one-sided written in favor of the surety. This is because bonds are not insurance. When a surety issues such bonds, it is doing so under the premise that it will get reimbursed every penny that it incurs relative to its exposure- whether incurred in attorney’s fees, consulting costs, or remediating a default or claim under the applicable bond. The General Agreement of Indemnity is one of the most powerful contracts in construction and is a contract that is not to be taken lightly. It provides the surety numerous rights in the event of a claim.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Executive Insights 2026: Leaders in Construction Law
October 06, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveWhat advice would you give contractors regarding documentation and recordkeeping to better protect themselves during disputes?
Jim Archibald
Partner
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Disputes over payment, scope and delays are among the biggest risks contractors face. Thorough documentation doesn’t just help win these disputes; it may prevent them from happening at all.
Start with the contract: Every project should begin with a written agreement that clearly defines scope, schedule, payment terms and change-order procedures. Verbal understandings are difficult to enforce.
Track changes in real time: Change orders, change directives, RFIs and scope clarifications should always be documented in writing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Safeguarding Your Privileged Construction Information With a Clawback Agreement
June 08, 2026 —
Laura Fraher - Construction ExecutiveFor contractors and construction executives, a
dispute that escalates to litigation brings risks that go well beyond the jobsite. When a dispute escalates to litigation, the attorney-client privilege is a critical protection to safeguard your interests. Disclosing privileged material can undermine your litigation position and, in some cases, negatively impact your business. In the construction context, this often includes sensitive communications about project delays, defect investigations, safety incidents or payment disputes—materials that can significantly impact both liability and reputation.
During litigation, the discovery process requires the exchange of documents and data with your adversary. If privileged materials are disclosed to your adversary during discovery you risk the waiver of your privilege, which in plain terms means you lose the protection of the privilege and make the privileged information, and in some cases all other information related to the same subject matter, available to your adversary. It is critical that your attorney take steps to protect against the unintentional disclosure of privileged materials during discovery to avoid a waiver.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Fraher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Ms. Fraher may be contacted at
lfraher@barclaydamon.com
Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Ordering Department of Defense to Resume Review of Wind Energy Projects
September 21, 2026 —
Victor J. Roehm III, Christopher P. Colyer & Sara M. Ajeti - Snell & WilmerOn August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, Case No. 3:26-cv-01092-IM, ordering the Department of Defense (DoD) to resume processing wind energy project applications under the existing statutory and regulatory framework and staying DoD’s review freeze pending final adjudication on the merits.
Background
In 2011, Congress created the Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) within DoD to review wind energy projects that might affect military operations. When a wind project developer files an application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the FAA refers it to DoD to determine whether the project poses an “unacceptable risk to the national security.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Victor J. Roehm III, Snell & Wilmer,
Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Roehm may be contacted at vroehm@swlaw.com
Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split
May 14, 2026 —
Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocsAdvertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests.
Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP,
David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and
Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com
Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com
Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com
Read the full story...
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
