When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site
March 03, 2026 —
Jason Loring - ConsensusDocsArtificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage.
The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLPMr. Loring may be contacted at
jloring@joneswalker.com
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers
June 02, 2026 —
Ryan J. Regula - Snell & WilmerDevelopers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state.
The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders
Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Regula, Snell & WilmerMr. Regula may be contacted at
rregula@swlaw.com
Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
June 01, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessAEC 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 BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron
February 02, 2026 —
Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Background
In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine
April 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows:
Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
New Report Outlines Roadmap for Construction Jobsites to Cut Carbon Emissions by 2040
April 20, 2026 —
PCL ConstructionDenver, Colo., April 16, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A new industry report outlines five practical steps that, when implemented together, could reduce construction jobsite emissions by up to 75% without compromising cost, schedule or performance. Grounded in real operational data from 617 construction projects across the U.S. and Canada, Growing and Greening Canadian Construction represents the most comprehensive sector-wide analysis of jobsite emissions conducted to date.
The report was developed through a collaboration among leading general contractors, including
PCL Construction, in partnership with the Transition Accelerator, an organization that drives projects, partnerships, and strategies to promote economic competitiveness in a carbon‑neutral world. The report focuses specifically on emissions from construction jobsite activities and reflects a shared commitment to advancing practical, scalable solutions for the industry.
About PCL Construction
PCL is a group of independent construction companies that operates throughout the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Australia. As one of the largest contracting organizations in North America, PCL completes more than $9.9 billion USD in work annually, building projects that shape communities. The company’s 100% employee ownership model fuels a culture of commitment for clients in the buildings, civil infrastructure, heavy industrial and solar markets. With a strategic presence in more than 30 major centers, PCL’s leadership teams consistently drive innovation and set new benchmarks for excellence, bringing unparalleled skill to every project. Watch us build at PCL.com.
About the Transition Accelerator
The Transition Accelerator works with 300+ partner organizations across Canada to build out pathways to a prosperous low-carbon economy and avoid costly dead-ends along the way. We help governments and industry harness the global shift towards clean growth to secure permanent jobs, abundant energy, and strong regional economies across the country. By connecting systems-level thinking with real-world analysis, we’re enabling a more affordable, competitive, and resilient future.
Read the full story...
Quick Note: Don’t Spoil Evidence!!!!
March 10, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe phrase “spoliation of evidence” is a phrase that gets used, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. The reason is that if evidence is legitimately spoiled, the opposing party wants an adverse inference jury instruction. There are two potential adverse inference jury instructions dealing with spoliation of evidence, neither of which are good, and one of which you definitely don’t want. A recent case discusses these jury instructions (check
here) in a slip and fall personal injury case. The bottom line is that you need to preserve evidence relevant to a claim. Don’t lose it. Don’t intentionally destroy it. Don’t pretend it does not exist. Don’t do all the things that hinder the preservation and ultimate production of the relevant evidence. An adverse inference jury instruction (or an adverse inference implication in a non-jury trial) could be much, much worse. The facts are what the facts are. The best thing you can do is confront the facts. Confront the bad facts just like the good facts. The nature of any dispute is that there will be both good and bad facts. Bad facts can hopefully be explained recognizing there will be bad facts on the other side too. Sometimes, the bad facts warrant major strategic considerations and shifting the focus of how a dispute will be handled and presented. Whatever you do, don’t put yourself in a position where you are spoiling evidence. Once you get an adverse inference instruction, that’s it, as it’s very tough to overcome.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
