"Resilient Rebuild Hub" Helps Wildfire-Impacted Homeowners Build Back Stronger
September 21, 2026 —
California Nevada Cement AssociationNEWPORT BEACH, Calif., Sept. 21, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- When homeowners in a fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades neighborhood banded together last year to rebuild with fire-hardened materials rather than standard wood framing, they weren't just rebuilding houses: they were rewriting the playbook for how California communities can rebuild after wildfire. Today, the Building with Resilience effort is making that playbook available to every homeowner facing the same decision with the launch of its new Resilient Rebuild Hub for exploring fire resistant, non-combustible construction options.
The Resilient Rebuild Hub helps homeowners understand options for fire-resistant, concrete-based construction and connect with architects, engineers, and contractors who can build them. This includes six noncombustible building systems:
- Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF): stackable, high-density foam blocks filled with concrete which save 20-50% on monthly heating and cooling costs, reduce outside noise by up to 80%, offer exceptional earthquake performance and 4-hour fire resistance rating.
- Insulated Composite Concrete Forms (ICCF): similar formwork to ICF construction with composite materials that enhance strength, simplify installation, and improve long-term performance.
- Concrete Masonry: strong, durable wall systems used for decades across California and the U.S.
- Precast Insulated Sandwich Panels: a complete building enclosure system consisting of two layers of concrete separated by a continuous layer of rigid insulation.
- 3D Shotcrete: air-sprayed concrete for strong, fast, and versatile wall systems that enable a high degree of artistic freedom together with unparalleled fire resistance.
- 3D Concrete Printing: the cutting edge of residential construction, a large-scale robotic 3D printer "squeezes" a specialized concrete mixture layer by layer to allow for organic, curved designs that are often too expensive or impossible to build with traditional methods.
The Resilient Rebuild Hub is available now at buildingwithresilience.com/how-to-build. Each part is free to access and includes case studies, technical resources, and a directory of architects, engineers, and contractors experienced in each building method.
CNCA is a not-for-profit organization committed to developing sustainable and economical construction solutions for California and Nevada with an emphasis on the use of cement and concrete. For more information, visit www.cncement.org.
CalCIMA is a trade association for the construction and essential mineral industries in California, including aggregate, essential and rare earth minerals, ready mixed concrete, and asphalt producers. In all, there are about 70 producer member companies that include 500 production sites in every county of California. Our members also include more than 100 suppliers and service providers to the industry.
Founded in 1930, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) is the leading industry advocate with a mission to provide exceptional value for our members by responsibly representing and serving the entire ready mixed concrete industry through leadership, promotion, education and partnering to ensure ready mixed concrete is the building material of choice.
When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim
November 02, 2026 — Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer
Construction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision.
The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement.
Reprinted courtesy of Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the full story...
Newmeyer Dillion Partner Jeff Masters Recognized by Chambers USA for Representation of Insurance Policyholders
June 08, 2026 — Newmeyer Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 4, 2026 – Newmeyer Dillion is proud to announce that litigation partner Jeffrey D. Masters has been ranked among a select group of California lawyers representing insurance policyholders in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA.
This marks two consecutive years of recognition for Masters by this prestigious international attorney rating resource.
"This recognition by Chambers and Partners is a testament to Jeff’s dedication to our clients," said Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. "We are thrilled to see his hard work acknowledged and the level of passion and care that he delivers to clients fully recognized." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Newmeyer Dillion
Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
June 01, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
AEC companies trying to operationalize AI often find they lack the data foundation on which to build. There may be an abundance of data hidden in documents, but you can’t reliably use it for AI.
The lack of data quality was a key topic discussed at the AI in AEC 2026 conference. During the event, I met many experts working to solve this problem, including Pavlina Nikolova, Egnyte‘s EMEA AEC Practice Lead. The chat and her presentation highlighted the challenges and ways to overcome them. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi
ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.
September 01, 2026 — ACEC Research Institute
WASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue.
The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants.
The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:
- technical reliability and model risk
- professional liability and standard of care risk
- data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
- organizational and workforce risk
- ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
- operational and cybersecurity risk
- financial and business model risk
- strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk
The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide.
The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.”
About the ACEC Research Institute
The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split
May 14, 2026 — Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocs
Advertisements 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...
Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid
September 29, 2026 — Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocs
Introduction
Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work.
Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Mayo may be contacted at jmayo@joneswalker.com
The Drawing Changed. Did You Catch It? A Hard Lesson for Contractors About Revised Plans
November 09, 2026 — Matthew J. Devries - Best Practices Construction Law Blog
Every contractor has seen it. A revised drawing hits your inbox. You open the sheet, look for the clouds, figure out what changed, and move on. But what if something changed outside the cloud?
That seemingly simple question became a very expensive problem in Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC, (Oct. 30, 2026), a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision involving a general contractor and its excavation subcontractor. The subcontract required Pitt to perform its work in accordance with the project drawings and specifications, “as amended from time to time.”
During the project, Young sent Pitt a revised drawing. Pitt’s owner testified that his practice was to look at the clouded areas because he understood those areas to identify what had changed. He explained that he presumed the rest of the drawing remained the same. Guess what? That assumption did not work out well. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. Devries, Buchalter
Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com
