Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision
April 20, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted).
The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id.
In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
It’s More Than a Feeling: Proving Construction Damages and When You Should Hire an Expert to Help Do It
July 27, 2026 —
Bradley E. Sands & Katie McCracken - ConsensusDocsWhen you win a bid, you might be singing that everything is going your way. Then something goes wrong. The owner hands you defective plans, sits on RFI responses or other critical information, or otherwise upends the work. The costs pile up through no fault of your own. You feel wronged, and you want to be made whole. But a feeling that you got burned is not enough. To recover, that feeling has to become something the law recognizes as damages. So, what are damages, and how do you prove them?
At bottom, contract damages are the money that puts the non-breaching party (i.e., the party that doesn’t breach the contract) in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP and Katie McCracken, Summer Associate, University of Georgia School of Law
Read the full story...Mr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects
June 15, 2026 —
Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction SeytIn our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California.
This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMr. Jacobson may be contacted at
zjacobson@seyfarth.com
EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill
May 14, 2026 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a
weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
Insurer Granted Summary Judgment, in Part, After Partial Payment of Claim
February 10, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was awarded summary judgment, in part, after paying a portion of the insured’s claim for hurricane damage. Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231406 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 24, 2025).
The Taylors’ home was damaged by Hurricane Sally. They submitted a claim under their homeowners’ policy to State Farm. They reported trees collapsing onto the house and blocking the front door, broken windows and doors, water damage and the roof collapsing in certain rooms of the house.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Limitations of Liability Provisions in Construction Contracts: A Means to Manage Risk and Limit Financial Exposure
June 23, 2026 —
Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche - Construction ExecutiveTaking a cue from architects and engineers, construction contractors have started inserting limitation of
liability clauses in their construction contracts to manage risk and limit financial exposure. This article will address the specific risks that can be limited through an LOL, tips for negotiating the LOL terms with reluctant owners to cover those specific risks, how to limit unintended consequences of an LOL (such as relieving an insurer of its obligations to cover certain losses), and approaches to setting the amount of the liability cap in the LOL.
Addressing Particular Risks
An LOL can address a wide range of risks, including:
- Damages for delay
- Liability for non-conforming or defective work
- Liability for third-party bodily injury or property damage
- Liability excluded by a general liability policy (e.g., pollution and cyber liability)
- Liability related to intellectual property
Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages
March 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages.
The Nabors Case
In
Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
