Often public agencies invite bids for a public works project in which they only mention that the successful contractor will be required to post a Performance Bond, without also mentioning the requirement for a Payment Bond.
Are Both Bonds Required? These two types of bonds provide different types of protection for a public agency and both should be obtained. In fact, depending on state and local laws, there is often a requirement that contractors post both a Performance Bond and a Payment Bond. In Washington State, Performance and Payment Bond requirements are addressed in chapter 39.08 RCW.
Purpose of Performance Bond: With a Performance Bond, the bonding company or surety agrees that if the contractor fails to complete the work, the bonding company will step in and finance the work and ensure that it is completed according to the contract documents.
Purpose of Payment Bond: Under a Payment Bond, the bonding company agrees to pay any subcontractors, suppliers, or workers in the event there are valid claims filed against the bond.
One Bond or Two Bonds? Should a public agency obtain one bond covering both Performance and Payment provisions, or should two separate bonds be obtained? Obtaining two separate bonds, each in an amount equal to the full contract price, actually provides the public agency with additional protection. Essentially, the agency is then covered for 100% of the contract amount for performance related claims, and 100% of the contract amount for payment claims. This is in contrast to obtaining a combined Performance and Payment Bond, where coverage is limited to just 100% of the contract amount for both performance and payment related claims.
Checklist of questions to ask about your agency's practices: - What do your state and local laws require with respect to obtaining Performance and Payment Bonds?
- Do your advertisement and bidding documents require both a Performance Bond and Payment Bond?
- Do you obtain separate bonds for Performance and Payment to provide extra protection for your agency?
Only 4 seats remain in the training workshop on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims" that will be held on November 4, 2009.
If you plan to register by check instead of credit card, please contact me immediately to reserve your spot so that credit card registrations do not fill up the class.
Deadline for registration: Monday, November 2, 2009
Date of Class: Wednesday, November 4, 2009Time Schedule: - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (class)
- 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (lunch break)
- 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (class)
Where: Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (3203 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023)Cost: - $100
- Optional box lunch is extra
Register by November 2, 2009: Attendance: Class is limited to 25 students. Only 4 seats left. The class is open to anyone.Instructor: Mike Purdy
Class Description: - What is the purpose of obtaining a Payment and Performance Bond?
- Why must Retainage be withheld from the contractor?
- What should a public agency do if a subcontractor, supplier, worker, or state agency files a claim against the bond and Retainage?
- What steps must a public agency take before they can release the Retainage to the contractor?
- What is the impact on public agencies of Substitute House Bill 1555 on Retainage release? This bill was approved by the Legislature this spring.
- We will address these and many other issues through a combination of lecture, class interaction, and small group exercises.
Attendee List: Visit http://www.mpurdy.com/list.pdf for a list of who has registered
Questions - contact me at:
On October 20,2009, the Clark County (Nevada) Commissioners took the unusual step of rejecting all four bids received on a $55 million membrane/ozonation facilities project due to bid irregularities in all of the bids. Earlier, the county had declared the bid of McCarthy Builders as non-responsive for being submitted almost a minute and a half past the bid submittal deadline. Click here to read my previous blog entry on October 14, 2009 on the late bid submittal protest. The county received two bid protests on the project that undoubtedly contributed to their decision to reject all bids.
In rejecting all bids and choosing to re-advertise the project, the county noted the various types of irregularities in the bids. The county appears to have required a number of documentation items to be submitted with the bid, a practice that can result in non-responsive bids, as occurred in this instance.
Unless required by funding sources or specific laws, I always advise that public agencies limit what is required to be submitted with the bid. This allows bidders to concentrate on developing a competitive bid price, often a challenge in the last minute receipt of subcontractor bids and the development of a final bid price to the owner. Limiting the submissions with the bid reduces the number and type of issues that may arise that would result in a non-responsive bid. In making a decision about whether a bid is responsive or not, the public agency should consider whether the irregularity in the bid is material or immaterial. In other words, if the irregularity would have provided a bidder with an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders, the bid must be declared non-responsive. Irregularities that do not provide one bidder with an advantage not enjoyed by others may be either accepted or rejected by the owner.
While it may exist, I didn't find anything in the Clark County record that reflected their evaluation of whether these irregularities were material or immaterial. Without reviewing the bidding documents and facts in this situation, it's hard to make the determination of whether the irregularities are material or immaterial.
The following is a summary of some of the irregularities in the bids noted by Clark County. Unless some of these items are required for submission by law, it seems to me that the county should not be requiring these with the bid submittal. - Failure to submit a copy of the bidder's contractor license with the bid. This should be a matter of public record and something that should be validated after bid submittal and prior to award of a contract.
- Failure to submit with the bid a copy of the contractor license for subcontractors performing at least 5% of the contract amount. Also a matter of public record and something that shouldn't be submitted with the bid.
- The total bid price was not tabulated correctly. It was higher than the sum of 12 individual bid items. Most agencies have, or should have, language in the bidding documents permitting the owner to correct such mathematical errors, so it's surprising that this was cited as one of the irregularities leading to rejection of all bids.
- Use of a form outlining the qualifications of the proposed electrical subcontractor was from a different project. Requesting qualification information with the bid requires all bidders to prepare and submit, instead of only requiring this information for the successful bidder prior to award. It also can lead to non-responsive bids. In Washington State, RCW 39.04.350 provides for the establishment of supplemental bidder responsibility criteria. I always advise that agencies request this information to be submitted after the bid submittal deadline.
- An instrumentation supplier qualification form was not completely filled out.
- An expired "Certificate of Eligibility" form related to bid preference was submitted. I'm not sure what the context is for this form, but if it's not required by law or the funding source, this is an example of the type of form that should not be required to be submitted with the bid.
- The form listing subcontractors were not completely and accurately filled out and contained dollar discrepancies. Another subcontractor listing form was not the current version of the form that had been updated by an addendum. In Washington State, there is a specific law requiring the submission with the bid of a list of subcontractors who will be performing electrical, plumbling, and HVAC for projects estimated to cost $1 million or more. See RCW 39.30.060.
In addition to the bid of McCarthy Builders that was rejected for being submitted late, the other four bidders whose bids were rejected were: Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., MMC, Inc., and Western Summit Constructors, Inc.
It's a good idea for public agencies to review their bidding documents to determine whether items are being required for submission with the bid that do not have to be submitted then, but could be submitted after the low bidder is identified. This helps streamline the bidding process for contractors and reduces the likelihood of receiving non-responsive bids.
On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, I will be teaching a five hour training workshop for the contracting and purchasing employees of KCDA (King County Directors Association) on "Developing and Reviewing Scopes of Work." Here's an outline of the agenda for the training: - Types of Contracts
- Purpose of Public Bidding
- The Importance of Clear Scopes of Work
- Types of Solicitations
- Components of Solicitations
- Components of Scopes of Work
- Resources for Scope Development
- Tips for Writing and Reviewing Scopes of Work
- Level of Detail in Scopes of Work
- Types of Scopes of Work
- Addenda
- Is it a Public Work?
KCDA is a purchasing cooperative that school districts in the State of Washington and other government agencies belong to and participate in.Please contact me if you are interested in me providing this training for your agency.
The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, under legislation approved in the spring of 2009 through SHB 1555, is now required to provide a release to public agencies prior to the public agency releasing retainage to the contractor on public works projects. The purpose of L&I's release is for them to verify that the contractor and subcontractors have paid industrial insurance (workers compensation) premiums as appropriate. L&I has instituted a process to not provide the release until the prevailing wage section of L&I has received Affidavits of Wages Paid from the contractor and all subcontractors reporting hours, classifications, and hourly wages paid to workers. L&I's reason for waiting for the Affidavits before they provide their workers compensation release is so they can check to see if the contractor and subcontractors have reported the hours on the Affidavits consistent with how they have reported hours for workers compensation premiums. In addition, L&I is checking to validate that the prevailing wage classifications listed on the Affidavits are consistent classifications reported for workers compensation premiums.
While there is no direct correlation between the classifications for prevailing wages and workers compensation, L&I is reviewing this information for reasonableness. If they have questions about whether the workers compensation hours and classifications have been reported correctly, they will contact the contractor or subcontractor.If L&I finds that a contractor is missing Affidavits of Wages Paid on a project, they will put the request for release from the public agency aside until all the Affidavits have been received. Public agencies and contractors interested in expediting obtaining L&I's release may want to monitor the filing of the Affidavits of Wages Paid and notify L&I when they are all on file to ensure that L&I reviews the complete file in a timely manner.
It will be interesting to see whether these additional review steps by L&I will increase the amount of time before a public agency may release retainage to contractors.
I will be teaching a class on November 4, 2009 dealing with the new requirements of SHB 1555 and other issues related to close-out of public works projects, including bonding, retainage, and claims.
For more information about the class and to register, visit either http://mpurdy.com/class.pdf or http://www.mpurdy.eventbrite.com. Registration closes on Monday, November 2, 2009.
This is the last week left to register for the 4 hour training workshop on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims."
There are only 7 seats left.
If you intend to register by mail with a check, please contact me ASAP so I can reserve a space for you and that online registrations do do fill up the class before I receive your registration.
Deadline for registration: Monday, November 2, 2009
Date of Class: Wednesday, November 4, 2009Time Schedule: - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (class)
- 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (lunch break)
- 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (class)
Where: Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (3203 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023)Cost: - $100
- Optional box lunch is extra
Register by November 2, 2009: Attendance: Limited to 25 students. Only 7 seats left. The class is open to anyone.Instructor: Mike Purdy
Class Description: - What is the purpose of obtaining a Payment and Performance Bond?
- Why must Retainage be withheld from the contractor?
- What should a public agency do if a subcontractor, supplier, worker, or state agency files a claim against the bond and Retainage?
- What steps must a public agency take before they can release the Retainage to the contractor?
- What is the impact on public agencies of Substitute House Bill 1555 on Retainage release? This bill was approved by the Legislature this spring.
- We will address these and many other issues through a combination of lecture, class interaction, and small group exercises.
Attendee List: Visit http://www.mpurdy.com/list.pdf for a list of who has registered
Questions - contact me at:
How should public agencies handle a bid that is submitted past the published bid submittal deadline? Here are a couple of principles and things to keep in mind:- Use a Time Stamp Clock: Have an electronic time clock that you use for date and time stamping in the receipt of bids. If the time clock displays and prints a time including seconds, and the bidding documents state that bids will be received until 2:00 p.m., a bid would be considered late if it was stamped in at 2:00:01 p.m. If, however, the time clock does not display and print seconds, a bid received and stamped in at 2:00 p.m. would still be on time. It would be late once the time clock read 2:01 p.m.
- Validate Official Time: On the bid submittal day, validate that the time on the time clock is accurate. Use the website maintained jointly by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its military counterpart, the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO). The website address is: http://www.time.gov/
- Post a Sign Designating Official Clock: Have a sign notifying bidders that the time clock is the official time for receipt of bids and not a wall clock or other clock in the office.
- Have Clear Language in Bidding Documents: Make sure the language in your bidding documents is clear as to the deadline.
- Do Not Accept or Read Late Bids: If a bid is received after the deadline, it should not be accepted by the public agency. The public agency should receive it only to stamp it, make a photocopy of the time stamp and outside of the bid envelope and immediately return the document unopened to the bidder. The bid should not be opened or read. Sometimes, a bidder may, however, refuse to accept the bid back, in which case it is best not to get into an argument about it. The public agency should then take the bid, verbally tell the bidder that the bid is non-responsive and will not be opened or considered, not open it, and immediately return it by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the bidder with a letter explaining that the bid was received past the deadline. I once had an upset bidder literally throw a late bid over the bid counter at my staff who had returned it to the bidder. So, remember to duck!
There are many other important issues and situations to consider when managing the bid receipt and opening process. If you are interested in an audit of your agency's bid receipt and opening practices or would like training on this subject, please contact me to discuss how I might provide assistance to you in this important area.
On October 23, 1979, I started working for the City of Seattle, Board of Public Works, in a position that was eventually titled Assistant Executive Director. It was the start of what marks 30 years for me in public contracting in the Seattle area.
A lot has changed in the last 30 years, especially my looks! From a 25 year-old recent MBA graduate with thick black frame glasses and a healthy crop of black hair, I am now 55 years-old with an increasingly white beard and a head of hair that has thinned and grown lighter in color! How the times change!
I worked for the City of Seattle for 21 years, managing construction and consulting contracting and was the City's Contracting Manager when I left at the end of 2000. I then spent five years as Contracting and Procurement Manager at the Seattle Housing Authority. For the last four years, I have been the Contracts Manager at the University of Washington's Capital Projects Office.
In the spring of 2005, I started Michael E. Purdy Associates, a consultant business offering strategies, solutions, and training to government agencies and businesses in the area of public contracting.
I have had the pleasure of working with a couple dozen satisfied clients, and look forward to continuing to serve both the public and private sectors in unraveling the complex world of public contracting.
Please contact me if you'd like to talk about how I might assist you.
Training: Basics of Public Works Contract AdministrationWhen: Tuesday, November 17, 2009Times: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.Where: Bellingham Public Works Department - Operations (2221 Pacific Street, Bellingham, WA 98229)Sponsored by: NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing)Instructor: Charlotte Walther (Procurement & Contracts Administrator, Port of Everett)Cost: - National NIGP members: $150
- WA State NIGP Chapter members: $150
- Nonmembers: $180
For more information and to register, visit the web site of the Washington State Chapter of NIGP.
Daniel Gordon, President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has commented on the delays that are often caused by bid protests. However, he goes on to state the following: "More troubling is the phenomenon where disappointed bidders are deterred from protesting by fear that the contracting agency will retaliate against protesting vendors in competitions for further contracts. Concern that disappointed bidders may be unwilling to protest weighs in favor of providing due process and ensuring that the protest forum is seen to be fair and to be willing and able to provide meaningful relief, and that protesters will not be subject to retaliation." "Bid protests play a central role in protecting the integrity of the procurement system. Neglecting, or crippling, an effective protest system will lead to a loss of transparency, and the shared experience of many procurement systems is that when transparency is decreased, corruption and related problems increase."
There are only 8 more seats available in the November 4, 2009 training class on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims" that I will be teaching in Federal Way, Washington.If you have started the process to pay the registration fee with a check, please contact me so that I can reserve a spot for you, and that the class doesn't fill up with the online registrations before I receive your registration form and check.For more information and to register:
There are only 2 weeks left to register for the 4 hour training workshop on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims."
Only 9 seats left before the class is full.
Deadline for registration: November 2, 2009
Date of Class: Wednesday, November 4, 2009Time Schedule: - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (class)
- 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (lunch break)
- 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (class)
Where: Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (3203 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023)Cost: - $100
- Optional box lunch is extra
Register by November 2, 2009: Attendance: Limited to 25 students, so register early. The class is open to anyone.Instructor: Mike Purdy
Class Description: - What is the purpose of obtaining a Payment and Performance Bond?
- Why must Retainage be withheld from the contractor?
- What should a public agency do if a subcontractor, supplier, worker, or state agency files a claim against the bond and Retainage?
- What steps must a public agency take before they can release the Retainage to the contractor?
- What is the impact on public agencies of Substitute House Bill 1555 on Retainage release? This bill was approved by the Legislature this spring.
- We will address these and many other issues through a combination of lecture, class interaction, and small group exercises.
Attendee List: Visit http://www.mpurdy.com/list.pdf for a list of who has registered
Questions - contact me at:
Under Washington State's GC/CM law (General Contractor/Construction Manager), the GC/CM may establish subcontractor bidder eligibility requirements, thus essentially pre-qualifying which subcontractors may submit bids on various trade subcontract bid packages (RCW 39.10.400).Other provisions of chapter 39.10 RCW provide that the GC/CM may submit a bid on a subcontract bid package, competing against subcontractors also bidding on the work as long as the body of work is typically performed by the GC/CM. In order to self-perform the work, the GC/CM must be the low bidder (RCW 39.10.390). When the GC/CM intends to bid to self-perform work, the public agency, instead of the GC/CM, is responsible for managing the bidding process, including receipt and opening of the bids. This is done in order to prevent a conflict of interest.But may a GC/CM who intends to bid on a subcontract bid package to self-perform the work establish bidder eligibility requirements for bidding on the work - thus providing them with the opportunity to essentially limit their competition by how the criteria are drafted? This issue is not specifically addressed in chapter 39.10 RCW. It seems clear to me that the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest should guide how this situation is handled. Thus, if the GC/CM intends to bid on a subcontract bid package, and believes there should be bidder eligibility requirements for the bidders on the subcontract package, the public agency, and not the GC/CM, should be the one to establish those criteria and to conduct the required hearing. Otherwise, the subcontract bidding process would be tainted by the GC/CM's conflict of interest.Making this explicit and clear in Washington State law would be a good clarification for all parties.
A Nevada contractor has filed a protest arguing that its bid on a $55 million project should be accepted even though the bid was received by the owner almost a minute and a half after the bid submittal deadline.McCarthy Building Cos., Inc. argued in their protest to Clark County that county employees were not at the bid counter when McCarthy employees wanted to submit the bid. The county employees have stated that they left the counter after the 2:00 p.m. deadline. And, of course, McCarthy argues it had the lowest bid. The county commissioners will consider the matter on October 20, 2009.For more information, visit the website of the Las Vegas Sun and scroll down on the page.I will provide more details as they become available.
I will be conducting an all day training session at Sound Transit on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 on two topics: - Developing and Reviewing Scopes of Work
- Public Works Change Orders
If you are interested in finding out more about these classes, please contact me.
A non-union contractor in New Hampshire has filed a bid protest with the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), charging that the "Project Labor Agreement" put into place on a $35 million federally funded construction project in Manchester unduly restricts competition to only union contractors and violates federal law.
Project Labor Agreements (PLA) require that all work on a public construction project be performed by union contractors and subcontractors. In February 2009, President Obama reversed an eight year prohibition on PLAs that had been imposed by former President George W. Bush. Obama's Executive Order 13502 encourages PLAs on federal construction projects more than $25 million.
The Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a non-union contractor association, joined the non-union contractor, North Branch Construction, in filing the complaint against the GAO. "More than 91 percent of New Hampshire's construction workforce does not belong to a labor union," stated North Branch president Ken Holmes. The PLA requirement mandating that work be performed by union contractors only "basically knocks us out of the game," he stated.
For additional information on this bid protest, visit the following websites:
There are only 3 weeks left to register for the 4 hour training workshop on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims."
Deadline for registration: November 2, 2009
Date of Class: Wednesday, November 4, 2009Time Schedule: - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (class)
- 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (lunch break)
- 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (class)
Where: Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (3203 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023)Cost: - $100
- Optional box lunch is extra
Register by November 2, 2009: Attendance: Limited to 25 students. Only 15 slots left, so register early. The class is open to anyone.Instructor: Mike Purdy
Class Description: - What is the purpose of obtaining a Payment and Performance Bond?
- Why must Retainage be withheld from the contractor?
- What should a public agency do if a subcontractor, supplier, worker, or state agency files a claim against the bond and Retainage?
- What steps must a public agency take before they can release the Retainage to the contractor?
- What is the impact on public agencies of Substitute House Bill 1555 on Retainage release? This bill was approved by the Legislature this spring.
- We will address these and many other issues through a combination of lecture, class interaction, and small group exercises.
Attendee List: Visit http://www.mpurdy.com/list.pdf for a list of who has registered
Questions - contact me at:
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog now has more than 200 subscribers from all across the United States and Canada.In July 2009, after one year of offering the subscription service, the blog hit 100 subscribers.Now, in just over three months, the second 100 subscribers have joined.Pass the word along to your colleagues about subscribing to the free e-mail subscription. Follow the easy sign-up instructions on the top right of the Blog.
The City of Yakima (WA) is recruiting to fill two positions in its Purchasing Department: a buyer and a purchasing assistant.
The positions are the result of a recent merger of the Purchasing Departments of the City of Yakima and Yakima County.
The deadline for applications is October 15, 2009.
For more information and to apply online, visit the City of Yakima's website at http://www.ci.yakima.wa.us/sigma/JobListings.aspx.
A school district in Ohio has won a court case in which a contractor and contractor associations sought a temporary restraining order against the district from proceeding with the bidding for construction of five new elementary schools with a prevailing wage requirement included in the bidding documents.Under Ohio state law, school districts are exempt from requiring payment of prevailing wages on their projects [ORC Chapter 4115.04(b)(3)]. One of the issues considered was whether the exemption nevertheless permitted a school district to require payment of prevailing wages.On September 30, 2009, Judge Alfred Mackey refused to issue a temporary restraining order, thus permitting the school district to proceed with the project, with the prevailing wage requirement.
Parties in the dispute were at odds over how much the prevailing wage requirement would actually add to the cost of the project.
The bid submittal deadline for the project, estimated to cost approximately $38 million, is currently set for October 8, 2009. Award of a contract could come as early as October 14, 2009 at the board meeting of the Ashtabula Area School District. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs have indicated they will appeal the decision and take to all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, if necessary.To read articles article from the Star Beacon, click on the links below:Located on the south shore of Lake Erie, the City of Ashtabula is about an hour away from Cleveland.
Construction Defects: Updates and Strategies - SeminarWhen: December 10, 2009Times: 9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.Where: Washington State Convention and Trade Center (Seattle, WA)Cost: $495Faculty:- Steven J. Jager
- Thomas F. Ahearne
- Edward R. Coulson
- Randy Hart
- T. Daniel Heffernan
- Zachary O. McIsaac
- Edward G. Rhone
- Christopher J. Soelling
For more information and to register, visit The Seminar Group's website.
A Baltimore, Maryland agency is under criticism for awarding six demolition contracts worth $2.3 million without following normal public bidding and contracting procedures.
The Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), created in 1991, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation under contract with the City of Baltimore and operates as a quasi-public agency. Their authority to even engage in public works contracting for the city is unclear.
Bids and contracts under criticism include the following: - Awarding to the third low bidder on a project to demolish of 12 rowhouses. The BDC stated that the two low bidders did not understand the full scope of work, but has been unable to document such an assertion.
- Awarding a $1.5 million City Center demolition project to the third low bidder after claiming that the two low bidders were late in submitting their bids. The contract used was adapted from a private contract and inapplicable provisions were crossed out by hand and new provisions hand-written in.
- On two projects, there was no public advertisement and the BDC simply asked for bids from two firms. Projects over $25,000 must be advertised by city agencies.
- A $378,477 demolition contract was awarded without public bidding because the BDC believed the building was an immediate threat to public safety. However, no process was apparently followed to determine whether an emergency actually existed requiring the waiving of public advertisement for the project.
Complicating matters is the ambiguity about just what authority the BDC actually has to engage in such public works projects. Even Baltimore's legal experts concede that "There is not an easy way for the law department to look at BDC and simply say 'Here is what you can do. Here is what you can not do."
According to Baltimore's Deputy Mayor Andrew B. Frank, a former BDC employee, BDC rules are "passed on from generation to generation," and are frequently not documented in writing, prompting one critic to label the BDC as a "rogue" agency that "is acting beyond the wildest conceptions of their legitimate role."
The irregular bidding and contracting practices of the BDC were first brought to light by The Baltimore Sun newspaper. Click here to read the October 5, 2009 article by Sun reporter Annie Linskey.
The State of Washington's Project Review Committee approved the application of Sound Transit on September 24, 2009 to use the GC/CM process for the $145 million construction of the University of Washington Station.
The GC/CM process is authorized under chapter 39.10 RCW.
To view a copy of Sound Transit's application to the Project Review Committee, click here.
I will be sponsoring and teaching a 4 hour training workshop on "Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims."
When: Wednesday, November 4, 2009Time Schedule: - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (class)
- 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (lunch break)
- 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (class)
Where: Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (3203 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023)Cost: - $100
- Optional box lunch is extra
Register by November 2, 2009: Attendance: Limited to 25 students, so register early. The class is open to anyone.Instructor: Mike Purdy
Class Description: - What is the purpose of obtaining a Payment and Performance Bond?
- Why must Retainage be withheld from the contractor?
- What should a public agency do if a subcontractor, supplier, worker, or state agency files a claim against the bond and Retainage?
- What steps must a public agency take before they can release the Retainage to the contractor?
- What is the impact on public agencies of Substitute House Bill 1555 on Retainage release? This bill was approved by the Legislature this spring.
- We will address these and many other issues through a combination of lecture, class interaction, and small group exercises.
Attendee List: Visit http://www.mpurdy.com/list.pdf for a list of who has registered
Questions - contact me at:
The NW Region of the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) is sponsoring a breakfast meeting with a panel discussion on "Forecasting the Future of Alternative Delivery Projects 2009-2010."When: Thursday, October 22, 2009Time: 7:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. (breakfast included)Cost:- $50 (DBIA members)
- $60 (non DBIA members)
Where: Rainier Club (820 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA)Panel:- Victor Ramos, Military Construction Manager, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
- Don Davis, Deputy Director for Link Light Rail, Sound Transit
- Tom Moore, Capital Improvement Business Line Coordinator and Chief Engineer NAVFAC NW
- Eric Smith, Director of Capital Projects, University of Washington
- John Dyer, State Construction Engineer for Mega Projects and Design Build
- John Lynch, Assistant Director, Engineering and Architectural Services, Washington State Department of General Administration
Topics:- What projects will be coming up in the remainder of 2009 and 2010
- What delivery methods are going to be used in the next couple of years
- The overall impact of the recession on the industry
- What trends are taking place in the industry
For more information and to register, click here.
Posts
