Federal Bid Protest Standard of Review and Disparate Treatment with Ratings
August 16, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review.
In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of No Coverage for Interior Leak
March 24, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that water damage caused by a leaking pipe over time was not covered under the insured’s homeowners’ policy. Mojica v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32405 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).
A small hole, slightly larger than a pen tip in size, developed in a pressurized hot water pipe. The resulting leak lasted for nearly six days and released enough water to saturate and ruin all the subflooring and flooring in the insureds’ home.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Construction Defect Litigation Podcast: Navigating Multi-Party Construction Defect Litigation
September 08, 2026 —
Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana FeldKahana Feld Construction Defect Practice Group Chair Ivette Kincaid and attorney Thomas McCarrick recently joined the Construction Defect Litigation podcast to discuss the challenges—and strategies—behind complex construction defect matters involving multiple stakeholders.
Drawing on their experience, Ivette and Thomas explore practical approaches to:
- Identifying key parties and understanding how claims and crossclaims develop
- Working with experts to evaluate defects, causation and damages
- Managing procedural challenges, including scheduling, document management and depositions
- Applying thoughtful case management strategies to position complex matters for successful resolution
Reprinted courtesy of
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and
Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com
Read the full story...
How AI Turns Construction Documents Into Procurement Intelligence
May 05, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessMEP equipment accounts for up to 40% of costs on data center or hospital projects, has lead times ranging from 20 weeks to over a year, and has historically been the most underserved area in construction software. In
this episode, I speak with Victor Muchiri from BuildVision about what it actually takes to make AI useful in construction procurement, not as a pilot, but in production.
We dig into why you cannot simply upload a set of construction drawings to ChatGPT and trust the output. Construction documents are complex, cross-referenced, and consequential. Without deep domain context, such as manufacturer ontologies, equipment taxonomies, and engineering expertise, AI produces plausible results, not reliable ones. BuildVision’s approach is to act as a harness around AI models, wrapping them in construction-specific knowledge so the output can be trusted for real procurement decisions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?
June 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages.
As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Integration Can Inoculate in Utah
July 20, 2026 —
Mark O. Morris - Snell & WilmerThe Utah Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed, in the construction context, Utah’s strict approach to enforcing integration clauses to preclude parol evidence and other legal theories that would vary the written terms of a contract. In Reid v. All Surface LC, 2025 UT App 134, decided last September, the court affirmed in all respects the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the strength of an integration clause against a homeowner who sued a contractor for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. More recently, however, the same court rejected those same arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, 2026 UT App 13 as to tort claims arising from a used car sale.
The facts in Reid were sympathetic to the plaintiff. After being told she had a mold issue near a defective basement shower, the plaintiff solicited bids. A remediation contractor advised that while it could address the mold, the shower replacement should be handled by someone else. The plaintiff contacted All Surface LC, a shower replacement contractor. During an interview, the sales representative stated that All Surface could “do full mold remediation, tear everything out, and reframe the shower.” The plaintiff ultimately retained All Surface, expecting it would both resolve the mold issues and replace the shower.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark O. Morris, Snell & WilmerMr. Morris may be contacted at
mmorris@swlaw.com
