Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Gregory R. Faulkner has served as local, national, and international counsel in all aspects of construction law for more than 30 years. Greg delivers a full-service approach to his practice, including selection of project delivery, preparation of bid documents, requests for proposals and qualifications, contract drafting, and negotiations. He also handles litigation in federal and state courts, as well as arbitration and mediation of all types of disputes. 

Contract Procurement + Project Delivery

Greg represents institutional owners, developers, and construction firms in the procurement, drafting, and negotiation of all construction-related agreements. He has handled agreements for public and private projects ranging in size from under $10 million to over $700 million. He has prepared and negotiated master agreements involving large building projects for clients in various industries, such as education, transportation, food and beverage, hospitality, and health care.

Greg has served as lead counsel in the drafting and negotiating of hundreds of millions of dollars in design, construction, and consulting contracts, for several large-scale projects. Examples include college and university campus expansion projects; a food and beverage company’s global headquarters as well as the construction of its training, research and processing facilities; a multi-million dollar factory transformation project; a high rise luxury hotel and residences in Midtown Manhattan; a Colorado resort comprising two hotels and a convention center; a casino renovation in Las Vegas; and the conversion of a signature Seattle building into commercial office space.

He has created contract templates for both design and construction. He also regularly works with all standard industry forms, including from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), ConsensusDocs, Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), and the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC).

Dispute Resolution

Disagreements can arise during a construction project, over matters such as defective workmanship, additional costs, and delays. Greg assists clients in the construction industry with resolving these issues through negotiation, mediation, arbitration or litigation. His successes include a settlement of millions of dollars on claims relating to construction and design defects at a major university building complex, and the resolution of a complex delay claim on behalf of a contractor on a major transportation project. He also successfully represented a construction manager and project owner in the arbitration of several disputed subcontractor claims on a renovation of a historic theatre and adjacent magnet school project.

Greg is a longtime member of the commercial and construction panel of neutrals for both the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the American Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. He has chaired several arbitrations and has extensive training, including both Arbitrator 1 and Arbitrator 2, from the AAA. Greg has also served as an advocate in dozens of  arbitrations, mediations and trials.

Greg is a Fellow in the Construction Lawyers Society of America, an invitation-only construction lawyer honorary society with membership limited to 1,200 practicing Fellows from the United States and internationally. He has lectured around the country on matters pertaining to construction law. He is also a prolific writer, and contributes to the firm’s blog, Construction Law Zone.

  • Catholic University of America (Juris Doctor)
  • Providence College (Bachelors, cum laude)
    • B.S., Business Administration

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New York

Received a Band 1 ranking in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Construction for 2025 and 2026

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2006 to 2025

Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area(s) of Construction Law since 2011 and Litigation-Construction since 2012

Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© as Hartford Lawyer of the Year in the area of Construction Law for 2026 and in the area of Litigation - Construction for 2015 and 2021

Selected to the Top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers list for 2018 and 2019

Connecticut Bar Foundation, James W. Cooper Fellow, 2013

Higher Education Real Estate Lawyers

Connecticut Building Congress
Past President

Connecticut Bar Association

Connecticut Bar Foundation
Fellow

American Bar Association
Forum on the Construction Industry

American Arbitration Association
Construction Panel

ADR Center, Inc.
Panel of Arbitrators

Professional Women in Construction

Construction Lawyers Society of America
Fellow

Associated General Contractors of Connecticut
Board of Directors (2019 - 2025)

United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut
Steering Committee, Building Foundations Breakfast

American Bar Association
Division 12: Owners & Project Finance (2020 - present)

Rocky Hill Zoning Board of Appeals
Commissioner (2012 - 2017)

Rocky Hill Planning and Zoning Commission
Commissioner (2010 - 2012)

Experience


222 Broadway - New York, New York

Served as construction counsel in the office-to-residential conversion of 222 Broadway, a 31-story building in Lower Manhattan’s Financial District. Developed by TPG Real Estate and GFP Real Estate. The project will transform the structure’s 770,416 square feet into 798 rental apartments and 40,000 square feet of commercial space. The $43.6 million overhaul will also involve the partial re-cladding of the midcentury façade and the construction of a 40-foot extension atop the parapet, bringing the total height to 430 feet.  In addition to negotiating all of the design, construction and related consulting agreements, Robinson+Cole assisted the Owner team with neighboring access agreements on this complicated project.

Read More

Providence College - Providence, Rhode Island

Representation of Providence College in the drafting and negotiation of the design and construction contracts in the construction of the Ben Mondor Center for Nursing and Health Sciences. The Mondor Center is serving as a new academic hub for the school, housing state-of-the-art teaching and learning environments for clinical nursing simulation, anatomy and physiology labs, a student resource center, faculty innovation labs, a chapel, and countless other spaces to support engaged learning inside and outside of the classroom. The five-story, 125,000-square-foot building is the largest on campus.

Read More

2340 Collins Avenue – Miami, Florida

Representation of Starwood Property Trust in the drafting and negotiation of various design, consulting and construction-related agreements for its headquarters in Miami Beach. The building bridges past and present by incorporating elements of the city's signature Art Deco style into an innovative and unique Miami headquarters that is launching its neighborhood's evolution from a resort town to a successful mixed-use community.

Read More


Publications


Construction Group Out + About teaser
May 2026

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Deal Report teaser
October 15, 2025

Construction Deal Report

Construction Group Out + About teaser
April 15, 2025

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Group Out + About teaser
May 2026

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Deal Report teaser
October 15, 2025

Construction Deal Report

Construction Group Out + About teaser
April 15, 2025

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Group Out + About teaser
December 3, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

August 29, 2024

Design-Build and EPC Contracting: A Practical Legal Guide

American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law

The book serves as a reference guide for construction lawyers looking for information about design-build and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts, the unique risks associated with design-build/EPC project delivery methods, and practice tips from industry professionals. Greg and Lisa authored Chapter 19, which focuses on bonding and performance security, a project delivery form that is becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Greg and Lisa are active members of the Forum. The book is available for order here.

Construction Group Out + About teaser
August 16, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Deal Report teaser
July 1, 2024

Construction Deal Report

Construction Group Out + About teaser
April 15, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Law Zone: Rhode Island Affirms the Principle That Sureties Must Be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can Be Held Liable for Principal’s Default teaser
July 2023

Construction Law Zone: Rhode Island Affirms the Principle That Sureties Must Be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can Be Held Liable for Principal’s Default



Construction Group Out + About teaser
December 3, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

August 29, 2024

Design-Build and EPC Contracting: A Practical Legal Guide

American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law

The book serves as a reference guide for construction lawyers looking for information about design-build and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts, the unique risks associated with design-build/EPC project delivery methods, and practice tips from industry professionals. Greg and Lisa authored Chapter 19, which focuses on bonding and performance security, a project delivery form that is becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Greg and Lisa are active members of the Forum. The book is available for order here.

Construction Group Out + About teaser
August 16, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Deal Report teaser
July 1, 2024

Construction Deal Report

Construction Group Out + About teaser
April 15, 2024

Construction Group Out + About

Construction Law Zone: Rhode Island Affirms the Principle That Sureties Must Be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can Be Held Liable for Principal’s Default teaser
July 2023

Construction Law Zone: Rhode Island Affirms the Principle That Sureties Must Be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can Be Held Liable for Principal’s Default


News


June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 29, 2024

Gregory Faulkner and Lisa Andrzejewski Help Author ABA's Design-Build and EPC Contracting: A Practical Legal Guide

American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law
August 23, 2024

Robinson+Cole’s Construction Practice Group Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity Build Day

Habitat for Humanity North Central Connecticut
Robinson+Cole’s Construction Practice Group Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity Build Day teaser
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers

June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 29, 2024

Gregory Faulkner and Lisa Andrzejewski Help Author ABA's Design-Build and EPC Contracting: A Practical Legal Guide

American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law
August 23, 2024

Robinson+Cole’s Construction Practice Group Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity Build Day

Habitat for Humanity North Central Connecticut
Robinson+Cole’s Construction Practice Group Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity Build Day teaser
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers

Events


Past

Navigating Tariffs and Supply-Chain Disruption in Construction

Apr 29 2026
The Construction Institute 2026 Women Who Build Summit
Past

Following the Money on a Construction Project

Nov 7 2024
HEREL 2024
Past

Navigating Tariffs and Supply-Chain Disruption in Construction

Apr 29 2026
The Construction Institute 2026 Women Who Build Summit
Past

Following the Money on a Construction Project

Nov 7 2024
HEREL 2024
Past

Design Build's Impact on the Borough Based Jail Projects

Jun 18 2024
Commercial Observer's 2024 Public Projects Forum
Past

Following the Money on a Construction Project

9/21/2023 - 9/22/2023
2023 Higher Education Real Estate Lawyers (HEREL) Conference
Past

Education Roundtable: School Construction Projects – Following the Money

Dec 7 2021
Past

School Construction Projects – Following the Money

Dec 7 2021
R+C-hosted webinar
Past

Design Build's Impact on the Borough Based Jail Projects

Jun 18 2024
Commercial Observer's 2024 Public Projects Forum
Past

Following the Money on a Construction Project

9/21/2023 - 9/22/2023
2023 Higher Education Real Estate Lawyers (HEREL) Conference
Past

Education Roundtable: School Construction Projects – Following the Money

Dec 7 2021
Past

School Construction Projects – Following the Money

Dec 7 2021
R+C-hosted webinar

Construction Law Zone


Below is an excerpt of the Construction Law Zone blog posts authored by Gregory.

Robinson+Cole Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

Robinson+Cole’s Construction Group has been ranked #35 in the second annual The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ list published by Construction Executive magazine on June 19, 2020. “We are honored to receive this ranking and be listed among the top 50 firms in the country,” said Robinson+Cole Construction Group Chair Gregory R. Faulkner. “Being ranked by a respected industry publication that is widely-read by construction business owners is a validation of the commitment and approach that our whole team takes to support our clients and the industry, and we look forward to continuing that effort on their important projects.” Read more.

Visit Blog

Construction Group Projects

In recent months, Robinson+Cole’s construction lawyers have worked across the country on many significant and unique projects worth billions of dollars in construction value. Our clients are owners, designers, and contractors, and we advised them on all aspects of these projects, from the earliest stages of project delivery selection to the ribbon cutting. This work included preparing and negotiating the many design, construction, consulting, project management, and development agreements these projects entail as well as advising our clients throughout the course of the process. The projects include educational facilities, hotels, residences, high-end retail, health care expansions, energy facilities, food and beverage facilities, and commercial build-outs. Click here for more information.

Visit Blog

Twenty-Five Years in the Construction Industry—We’ve Come a Long Way Baby, or Have We?

In November 1989, I was a second year law student interviewing with firms in Connecticut and New York for a summer associate position.  During the Thanksgiving Holiday, I scheduled an interview with a small firm in New Haven.  The firm’s primary area of practice was construction litigation. I had no idea what “construction litigation” entailed, and I knew even less about the construction industry itself.  My grandfather was a mason, but he had died long before I was born.  Nonetheless, maybe it was a sign.  The interview went well and I was sufficiently intrigued to take the offer to serve as a summer associate in the Summer of 1990. My Summer went well and I accepted a full time position with that firm in 1991—25 years ago.  The legal profession and the construction industry have changed quite a bit over the past 25 years.  Has it all been for the better?  My silver anniversary as a construction lawyer gave me the opportunity to look back on how the industry has evolved over the past several years. A Pop Culture Frame of Reference First, I tend to use pop culture and sports to provide context, so I’ll digress a bit to give a frame of reference for how the world looked in 1991.  The first Persian Gulf War began and ended.  The best-selling book that year was The Firm, by John Grisham; appropriate, I suppose, for a first year lawyer.  Silence of the Lambs was the major hit movie, and the top 3 albums were three of my all-time favorites—Nevermind by Nirvana, Ten from Pearl Jam and Achtung Baby from U2.  Nolan Ryan had just thrown his seventh career no hitter, and Michael Jordan won his first NBA Championship.  Law & Order was in its first season.  OJ Simpson was an NFL sideline reporter for NBC.  It would be another three years before the nation was captivated by the infamous white Bronco chase. In the construction industry, the Big Dig in Boston began construction, and the Chunnel construction was well under way, ironically connecting England to the rest of Europe.  It would be completed three years later.  I think the Big Dig is still under construction.   Practicing Law in 1991 On my first day of work, I was handed a Dictaphone, a box of pens and notepads.  I would not receive my first computer desktop until a year or two later.  It would be a few more years before I was connected to the internet, right around the same time that I picked up my first cell phone.  It was physically attached to the dashboard of my car and it would not fit in my back pocket.  If a pleading had to be filed in court or sent to the opposing party on the same day, a retired gentlemen named Sam hopped in his wagon to make the hand delivery, unless we were cutting it close, in which case those of us who tended to drive a little faster would take care of the delivery ourselves.  Document inspections were performed at job trailers, rather than on SharePoint sites. The Construction Industry Turns to Partnering and Project Teaming In the construction industry, the traditional design-bid-build method was still being used on most projects.  The architect created the design, the owner sent the design out to bid, and the construction team built the project based on what everyone hoped was a complete design for a fixed price.  Nonetheless, the industry was starting to turn toward more collaboration among the parties, and the concept of “partnering,” a method of improving communications by setting common goals and monitoring achievement of those goals, was adopted by the Associated General Contractors and the Army Corps of Engineers in 1991.  The idea of “partnering” would continue to evolve over the next 25 years, as the construction team became involved earlier in the process, especially in the analysis of constructability and estimating, leading to what we now recognize today as “Integrated Project Delivery.” Industry Forms in 1991 The industry was just weaning itself off of the 1976 AIA forms, and adopting the 1987 version.  Making edits to the AIA forms in 1991 was a much more time consuming task, so construction professionals and their attorneys held on to their 1976 templates as long as possible.  Major changes were to come to the AIA documents and all industry forms, in response to an evolution of the case law and in dispute resolution, but those changes were still a few years away.  The 1987 AIA forms required mandatory arbitration (no check boxes for alternative dispute forums).  They did not contemplate any waivers or limitations in damages.  The parties did not contractually waive subrogation rights on behalf of their insurers, thus providing insurers an opportunity to recover proceeds paid from those whom the carrier believed to be responsible.  The AIA Architect Agreements contained no reference to insurance, leaving owners without any ability to confirm what coverages their architects had in place. Court Decisions Impact the Industry During the 1990s, a series of court decisions and industry developments led to an evolution in design and construction contracts, and the introduction of legislation throughout the country aimed at increasing protections for the construction industry.  As contractors and subcontractors complained that they were not getting paid in a timely manner, legislators started listening, and states enacted prompt pay laws. The penalties imposed on parties for failing to pay pursuant to these prompt pay laws varies a great deal from state to state, and thus the question remains as to how successful these prompt pay statutes have been in reducing the time that contractors and subcontractors must await payment.  Retainage on construction projects was also addressed.  In the early 1990s, it was typical for owners to hold 10% retainage as security until the very end of the project.  States began enacting laws that would reduce retainage to as little as 5% or less, even on private projects. Design and construction contracts are complex commercial transactions.  In the early 1990s, most in the construction industry probably did not appreciate the effort required to negotiate the agreements fairly, until certain court decisions changed that perspective.  Throughout the course of the 1990s, courts enforced clauses that limited or completely eliminated recovery for delay related damages.  Lien waivers executed prospectively (in many cases before work even began) were upheld.  Courts assessed massive consequential damages and lost profits against delinquent contractors, in some cases leading to bankruptcy or dissolution of the contractor. The Industry’s Response In response to these decisions, the industry modified its contract forms to limit certain exposures, and construction and design professionals more aggressively negotiated contractual provisions that otherwise may have gone unnoticed.  For instance, the AIA added a sweeping waiver of consequential damages clause to its forms, limiting the construction team’s exposure to owner claims for lost revenues and delay related damages.  State legislatures also responded by enacting statutes voiding certain contractual clauses , such as prospective waivers of lien on work for which a contractor or design professional had not been paid. More recently, the industry has become creative in its efforts to resolve disputes more efficiently.  It is rare to find a contract that does not require non-binding mediation as a precondition to arbitration or litigation.  Many contracts also require principals to meet in an effort to resolve disputes before calling in third parties.  On particularly large projects, pre-appointed “dispute review boards” may decide disputes as they arise on the project, rather than allowing claims to fester for the duration of the project or longer. How Far Have We Come? So, are we better off now than we were in 1991?  Musically, I would argue not.  My downloads rarely include songs written after 1991.  But as I look back on my 25 (or more) years in the construction industry, it’s hard to argue against the positive developments overall.  Contracts tend to be more thoughtful and fair.  Massive defaults, while still a part of what remains a risky business, are less prevalent.  Parties are more engaged in seeking to prevent disputes before they arise; and when they do, finding solutions to disputes, rather than engaging in costly and contentious court or arbitration proceedings that can harm long term relationships.  My practice, which was at one time almost exclusively based in litigation, is now more devoted to selection of project delivery, procurement, contractual negotiations and risk management, to avoid such disputes. Are contractual negotiations sometimes more tortured than they need to be?  Probably.  Has the industry become a bit too risk sensitive?  Arguably, parties should be more willing to accept responsibility for their actions.  But overall, I think we are in a better place. Let’s see what the next 25 years bring!  Unless I win the lottery, I anticipate being around for most of it! Pearl Jam cover photography by ijclark, some rights reserved. Big Dig photography by Nantaskart, some rights reserved. Chunnel photography by Sam Churchill, some rights reserved.

Visit Blog

Limitations of Liability – Scenario 3: Pay if Paid and Flow Through Clauses

I suppose that it is apropos that I have been delayed in writing this  final piece in the four-part Limitations of Liability series, relating to subcontract pay if paid and flow through clauses.  Being more than one step removed from a project’s funding source, subcontractors are used to being dealt with last, and only after a lag in the schedule, whether foreseeable or not.  Subcontractors will tell you that “it” tends to flow downhill, and financial issues and project glitches tend not to improve by the time they make their way to the subcontractor, whether the issues or glitches are tied to the subcontractor or not. Their concerns regarding delays in payment appear to be justified.  In a recent ENR survey, thirty percent (30%) of payments from contractors to subcontractors were late, by an average of 36.4 days.  Eighty-Three of the subcontractors surveyed reported that more than 6 in 10 payments were past due.  Although most states now have prompt pay laws, with varying degrees of penalties, the survey reflects that these laws seem to have minimal impact on the timing of payments.  Perhaps these timing issues relate to project owners holding funds as long as possible to earn additional interest, but with interest rates so low, that seems unlikely.  Maybe project owners are being cautious and remain as far ahead of their contractors and subcontractors as possible in the funding of the project.  More likely, subcontractors are reluctant to harm their business relationship with contractors, or simply don’t wish to incur added costs in pushing the timing of payments. Nonetheless, contractors rightfully wish to avoid being “squeezed” between a non-performing owner and the subcontractor.  There are contractual mechanisms to do so fairly, but often times subcontractors are asked to take on even greater risk than the contractor itself.  Subcontractors not surprisingly attempt to avoid these clauses. Pay if Paid Clauses These days, most sophisticated contractors include “pay if paid” clauses in all their subcontracts.  An enforceable “pay if paid” clause makes payment by the owner a “condition precedent” to payment to the subcontractor.  If the condition precedent language is not included, the clause becomes nothing more than an obligation to pay within a reasonable time, so  precision in the language is key.  The enforceability of these “pay if paid” clauses can vary by jurisdiction, and if the project owner is unable to pay at all (due to bankruptcy or other reasons), it remains questionable as to whether a court will construe such clauses as a permanent bar, excusing payment from contractor to the subcontractor.  As a result, contractors are now expanding such clauses to require that the subcontractor share in the risk of the financial viability of the owner, and if the owner is unable to pay, the contractor is not required to pay either. From a subcontractor perspective, being at least one tier removed from the owner and with less opportunity to assess the owner’s credit-worthiness, these provisions may seem unfair.  At the very least, a savvy subcontractor will require financial information regarding the owner’s financing for the project before undertaking the work.  If change orders exceed a certain percentage, perhaps 10%, then the subcontractor may consider requesting further evidence of funding as to those changes.  The subcontractor’s long term relationship is usually with the contractor, so such requests may be awkward, but fair.  When faced with such clauses, subcontractors will want to be mindful of their rights under payment bonds and mechanic’s lien statutes, and not allow such rights to expire before attempting to secure payments.  Pay if paid and flow through clauses may provide defenses for the owner, contractor or surety, but while those defenses are being asserted, the subcontractor’s rights will be better secured by making demand on a bond or filing a lien; these actions may also attract the required attention to bring the matter to closure. Flow Through Provisions Finally, though strict flow through provisions serve a legitimate purpose, subcontractors grow weary of provisions limiting their recovery for additional time or cost to such costs or extensions which the contractor can recover from the owner.  There are circumstances on any project in which the contractor rather than the owner is the cause of a delay or added cost.  A subcontractor may seek to except from any flow through provision any delays or added costs caused directly by the contractor that may not be recoverable from the owner. Take Away Subcontract flow through and “pay if paid” provisions can be fairly drafted to protect the interests of both contractor and subcontractor.  Subcontractors, however, must be vigilant of more onerous changes that purport to shift all of the risk to the subcontractor.

Visit Blog

Limitations of Liability— Scenario Two: No Damages for Delay Clauses

This is the third post in the four-part series “Limitations of Liability—The Elephant in the Room.” Owners often attempt to limit their liability to contractors through what is commonly known in the construction industry as a “no damages for delays” clause.  Much like waivers of consequential damages, a “no damages for delays” clause, which limits damages for construction delays, accelerations and other inefficiencies, can serve a fair purpose, despite the perceived severity to a contractor who falls behind schedule for reasons beyond its control.  These delay-related costs (especially indirect costs such as extended home office overhead or lost bonding capacity) tend to be speculative and difficult to prove.  Proving and defending delay claims is also a very expensive proposition, both as to entitlement and quantum.  Finally, project owners presume that contractors are better prepared to confront project delays, and to carry costs for such a contingency in their pricing. In many jurisdictions these clauses are fully enforceable, albeit with limited exceptions that courts have restricted in recent years.  Contractors that choose to ignore these clauses do so at their peril. Nonetheless, no contractor can anticipate every delay or impact, and a protracted delay in a project can have a devastating financial impact on the construction team.  There should be a means by which contracting parties can fairly allocate the cost issues that come with unexpected delays, without leaving the door open for speculative claims. Let’s take a look at three very different contract clauses that could limit, or even completely exclude, recovery for delay damages. The first is a prototypical “no damages for delays” clause: The Contractor’s sole remedy for an excusable delay in the Work shall be an extension of time. The Contractor waives and agrees to make no claims for damages for delay in the performance of this Contract caused by an act or omission of the Owner or its representatives, and agrees that any such claim shall be fully compensated by an extension of time to complete performance of the work as provided herein. Contractors likely will seek to avoid clauses that are so broadly worded, or at least attempt to negotiate some limit to its applicability.  Project owners may also consider avoiding such broadly worded clauses, as they could lead to inflated initial pricing, excess contingency, claims for additional costs outside of delay, or worst case, a contractor default. A more effective approach to placing checks on questionable delay costs might be to identify the potential areas of delay up front, and have the Contractor consider the impact in its bid and schedule.  Note the following clause: The Contractor shall schedule its operations in such a manner as to minimize interference with the operations of the utility companies or local governments in effecting the installation of new facilities, as shown on the plans, or the relocation or their existing facilities.  The Contractor shall consider in its bid all permanent and temporary utility appurtenances in their present or relocated positions and any installation of new facilities required for the project.  The Owner will not make any additional compensation to the Contractor for delays, inconvenience or damage sustained by the Contractor due to (i) interference with Project construction caused by the location, condition or operation of utility (including railroad) appurtenances or (ii) the installation, removal, or relocation of such appurtenances; and the Contractor may not make a claim for any such compensation. This clause is also a “no damages for delays” clause, but with a significant difference.  This clause addresses a specifically contemplated event of delay (in this case relocation of utilities), which allows the contractor to address such contingencies in its bid and in its schedule. If a project owner is particularly concerned with claims over specific types of delay damages, a clause limiting damages for delays may be more appropriate than an outright prohibition: The Contractor’s sole remedy for an excusable delay shall be an extension of time as provided herein, direct field personnel expenses, general conditions, Subcontractors’ actual field costs, and direct overhead and profit as allowed by the Contract Documents.  The Contractor waives all other damages for delay, including home office overhead and allocated portions of indirect or general overhead expenses, incurred by it or anyone claiming through it. This clause limits the contractor’s recovery to direct, provable costs, such as project supervision, jobsite equipment and other project specific costs, while prohibiting recovery of the more speculative, indirect costs. While limiting speculative and cost prohibitive claims is a fair concern, both parties gamble on the success of the project when they attempt by contract to shift disproportionate risk to one party.  There are ways to control costs and claims for delay without completely eliminating the right to recovery, and allowing for successful project completion.

Visit Blog

Limitations of liability—Scenario One: Waivers of Consequential Damages

This is the second post in the four-part series “Limitations of liability—The Elephant in the Room.” Waivers of consequential damages have become the industry standard, and these clauses are found in most industry templates.  Let’s pick on the AIA form, since it’s still the most commonly used on commercial construction projects.  The AIA A201 General Conditions, § 15.1.6, states: § 15.1.6 CLAIMS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract. This mutual waiver includes .1  damages incurred by the Owner for rental expenses, for losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and reputation, and for loss of management or employee productivity or of the services of such persons; and .2  damages incurred by the Contractor for principal office expenses including the compensation of personnel stationed there, for losses of financing, business and reputation, and for loss of profit except anticipated profit arising directly from the Work. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with Article 14. Nothing contained in this Section 15.1.6 shall be deemed to preclude an award of liquidated damages, when applicable, in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The origins of this clause in the construction setting are often traced back to a New Jersey case called Perini Corporation v. Great Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc., involving the construction of a casino in Atlantic City.  The casino owner won $14.5 million in lost profits in an arbitration against the contractor on what was originally a $16.8 million GMP project.  The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision.  The AIA and other industry groups reacted almost immediately by adding a clause to their contract forms, like the one above, purporting to waive “consequential damages” that may be claimed by either party arising out of the contract. Although the clause is identified as a “mutual waiver,” the waiver as it applies to the contractor is extremely limited and the clause is clearly intended to protect contractors against claims such as those raised by the owner in the Perini matter.  It’s a noble concept.  No contractor wants to accept the risk that any one breach could lead to the financial ruin of its company.  But does this clause, and others like it, go too far in the other direction?  Let’s play out the typical conversation when an owner client sends me the AIA form: Owner: “The contractor sent me this AIA contract.  He tells me it’s industry standard and doesn’t need any changes.” Attorney:  “The AIA forms are certainly good starting points, and have been well-vetted by the industry.  But there are a couple of standard terms that you should review carefully before signing.  For instance, have you considered what ability you have to recover your losses if the contractor delays the project?” Owner:  “Well, I assume we would have the right to recover from the contractor for losses caused by his delay.” Attorney:  “Maybe not.  The AIA General Conditions bar an owner from recovering  “rental expenses, for losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and reputation, and for loss of management or employee productivity”  in that scenario, even if the contractor caused those losses.  That’s a pretty broad waiver, and it includes most, if not all, damages you would likely suffer if the project falls behind schedule.” Owner:  “Who pays for those losses if the contractor is behind schedule?” Attorney:  “If it’s not the contractor, I assume that it’s you.” Owner:  “That’s not what I intended.  How do we address this?” Attorney:  “Have you considered liquidated damages?  They would add back some of what this this clause takes away, and allows the parties to fix the per diem damages that the contractor would owe for failing to meet the project schedule.  You could even cap the amount if you want.” Owner:  “The Contractor will never agree to liquidated damages at this point.  They didn’t account for liquidated damages in their bid.” Attorney:  “I’m sure the contractor didn’t specifically plan for a delay, but I don’t think the contractor bid the project on the assumption that he would have no exposure to you if he failed to perform.  We can strike the waiver clause, or customize it in some fashion, like selecting certain delay damages that you could recover for a contractor delay, such as extra rent or added financing costs.  And if the contractor is insured for any of your losses from the delay, or if they result from intentional or other egregious misconduct, I doubt he would argue that he shouldn’t be responsible.  It is usually easier to approximate those losses up front through a liquidated damages clause, so that everyone understands their exposure.  Also, once liquidated damages are set, the contractor can pass this particular exposure through to his subcontractors, to the extent that they cause the delay.” Owner:  “I guess we need to have a conversation.  This won’t be easy.” The owner is right.  These are hard conversations, but they are made all the more difficult if these issues do not arise until the eve of contract signing.  The owner and the construction team need to understand the extent of the exposure if the project is late due to circumstances in which the contractor is responsible. The contractor needs some motivation and should have some responsibility if it fails to deliver the project on time, but the owner can’t reasonably expect a contractor to take on a project that could lead to financial ruin over common negligence. Neither party should rely blindly on standard industry forms to define what losses are recoverable in the event of breach.  A project owner should analyze its potential exposures as part of its overall business plan for the project.  From there, any RFPs or invitations to bid should include a form of contract that clearly defines the contractor’s exposure in the event that he fails to honor his obligations.  Factors such as insurance, the nature of the conduct leading to the loss, and the nature of the damages that may be suffered should all be taken into account.  Not an easy conversation, but better for both parties if these issues are confronted up front.

Visit Blog

Limitations of Liability – The Elephant in the Room

This is the first post in the four-part series “Limitations of liability—The Elephant in the Room.” One or more of the following scenarios takes place in my office virtually every day: Scenario One:  Owner client sends me an industry form construction contract and asks me to take a look, after the project has been bid but prior to execution (or worse, after a problem has arisen on the project).  The contract contains a “standard” waiver of consequential damages. Scenario Two:  Contractor client has bid on a project and has asked me to “bless” its contract with the Owner (or worse the project is already behind schedule), and the contract contains a “no damages for delay” clause. Scenario Three:  Subcontractor client sends me a template subcontract form that it received after pricing a private project for a contractor.  The subcontract includes a “pay if paid” clause, and prohibits recovery of costs except to the extent that the contractor recovers from the owner (regardless of who is at fault). Inevitably, when I flag these clauses for my clients, they tell me that they either didn’t contemplate such risks when they first got involved, or they don’t anticipate that these clauses will present an issue for them.  It’s understandable. Who thinks about claims or problems when they’re just getting started on a new project or a new relationship? And if they are thinking worst case scenarios, who wants to call attention to the elephant in the room – that they want their exposure limited in the event the project does go bad. However, over the last few years, parties to construction contracts have become much more bold in raising these issues. Rightfully so, as they are critical, but I have witnessed some significant misunderstandings as to what these clauses actually mean. It’s time to talk about the elephants in the room, and to clear up misunderstandings about their meanings.  Hopefully doing so will spur a dialog about basic business expectations at the beginning of the project – well before the contract is finalized. We’ll tackle all three scenarios.  Our first installment, to be published contemporaneously with this post, will address scenario one, the waiver of consequential damages clause, and what it could mean to project owners.

Visit Blog

Maximizing Project Success—A New Guide for Owners

Original photography by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District (Licensed) Those of us who work in the design and construction industry have a good idea of what drives a successful project. In short, we see a successful project as one that finishes on time and within the budget. Common sense dictates that the chances of achieving those results increase with team integration and cohesion. If the project owner, design team and construction team are all on the same page, regardless of project delivery method, the owner (and the other members of the team) will likely be more pleased with the outcome. Earlier this year, the Charles Pankow Foundation and the Construction Industry Institute sponsored a study in maximizing team integration. The study, entitled “Maximizing Success in Integrated Projects: An Owner’s Guide,” is available for free. The study is based on findings related to 204 capital projects completed between 2008 and 2014. Construction professionals will not be surprised to find that the study’s three critical factors of project success are the following: Early Involvement. A significant portion of my practice involves representation of public and private owners of various levels of sophistication. Oftentimes, we are called upon to represent the owner in the drafting and negotiation of the construction contract, well after design is under way or in some cases even completed. At that point, there is very little flexibility regarding method of delivery, schedule, or constructability. Not surprisingly, the study found that bringing the construction team to the project early—as early as prior to the completion of schematic design—was a key indicator of success. Early involvement allows the construction team to provide valuable input into the design (including estimating, value engineering and constructability analysis) and encourages communication between construction and design team members that will prove critical later in the project. Even before selection of the project team, the owner should define the project’s unique goals and attributes, which will be key factors for the owner in the selection of the project team. This leads to the second critical factor . . . Qualifications Based Selection. The study also found that the chances of success increase significantly if the project owner selects a team based on qualifications rather than simply based on price. Using a more subjective approach to qualifying the design and construction team means not only selecting the name brand contractor or architect, but taking the opportunity to ensure that the personnel assigned to the project are qualified for the project (e.g. if you are building a school or a hospital, the project team members have practical experience on educational and healthcare projects), and are comfortable working together as a team (e.g. there are no personality conflicts between the lead architect and the contractor’s project manager). Clearly, this is easier to achieve on private projects, but even on public projects, there are opportunities ( e.g. through pre-qualification) to achieve some form of qualifications based selection. Cost Transparency. For the most part, closed-book, fixed priced contracts are antiquated. Given the level of complexity in today’s construction, all parties are better served with the idea of open book accounting. With the transparency of an open book process, there is a higher degree of trust between owner and builder. This is common ground for an owner and primary builder (such as a CM), but the study found that this transparency has made its way down to key specialty trades as well. The study also found that shared risk and reward were additional drivers of success, though in my experience I have found that construction teams are far more sophisticated in analyzing financial risk and reward and less experienced project owners can be taken advantage of in negotiating a shared savings or other financial rewards. The Guide is over 50 pages and includes a number of benchmarks that are available for further review at the website cited above. Clearly, the intent of the study is to promote Integrated Project Delivery (which may not be for every owner and can vary a great deal depending upon how a project team defines IPD) but the Guide contains a number of good talking points that, while seemingly more obvious to those in the industry, can be very valuable in particular to less experienced owners, and even to construction and design teams who are working with project owners for the first time.

Visit Blog

Giving Back on the Construction Site

I am incredibly grateful for all that our group has achieved as a construction practice, thanks in large measure to the support of the construction industry and the community in which we do business. It has been an R+C tradition to acknowledge our place in the community and in the industry to which we provide legal services, so when the partners in the group explored a team building exercise for the Spring, a Habitat for Humanity seemed a natural fit. On April 29, our Construction Group participated in a Habitat for Humanity Team Build in East Hartford.  It was a great success. In addition to giving all of us the opportunity to use power tools (construction lawyers love power tools) and to spend a day out of the confines of our offices, we learned much more about the good work that Habitat for Humanity does for families all over the country. We started the day bright and early at 7:45 AM, with a brief safety talk and an introduction to Habitat for Humanity by our supervisor, Stan. We learned that the home that we were assisting in building was not a gift. These homes are earned. Families interested in participating must go through an application process, and if selected, must provide their own sweat equity in the construction of the home. They are given a low interest loan that can be paid over an extended time, and arrangements are made to ensure that they cannot simply sell the home and take advantage of the sale proceeds. The success rates are incredibly encouraging. The large majority of the families remain in the homes for years, and 85% of the next generation children pursue higher education. The group has unanimously agreed that the entire day was a success, and we plan on doing it again. I strongly encourage our friends in the industry to reach out to your local Habitat office and schedule your own Team Build.

Visit Blog

War (and Construction Scheduling) is Hell?

On February 26, 2015, Roy Cooper of Arcadis and I reprised our popular Workshop for the University of Hartford’s Construction Institute, “Managing Legal Exposures.”  One of the slides in our presentation  quotes a wise jurist on the subject of construction project scheduling: Except in the middle of a battlefield, nowhere must men coordinate the movement of other men and all materials in the midst of such chaos and with such limited certainty of present facts and future occurrences as in a huge construction project...Even the most painstaking planning frequently turns out to be mere conjecture, and accommodation to changes must necessarily be of the rough, quick and hoc sort, analogous to ever changing commands on the battlefield. Blake Constr.Co. v. C.J. Coakley Co., 431 A.2d 569 (D.C. App. 1981). Of course, the stakes on even the largest construction projects are not nearly as significant as those on the battlefield. That said, nothing creates as much exposure to a construction project team as the failure to manage and promptly address scheduling changes.  Similar to the battlefield, the one thing that can be anticipated is the unanticipated.  Those who are successful are those prepared for the unexpected. Risk mitigation for project delays can and should be addressed as early as the selection of the project team, and in the preparation of the contract documents.  The following should be considered long before the “chaos” of construction: Selection of Project Team and Project Delivery.  On more complex projects, team up the construction and design professionals early.  This serves two purposes.  First, it establishes prior to “boots hitting the ground” whether the team is made of problem solvers or problem makers.  If there are issues with one or both team members, it is better to make adjustments early.  Secondly, the construction team can better assist the design team with long lead items, constructability issues, value management and other potential scheduling factors well before they become a problem. Strong  Reporting.  Create protocols early for the level of detail in reporting.  The Contractor should provide a template of its daily and monthly reports prior to the start of construction for owner and design team input.  Good reporting leads to addressing potential scheduling issues earlier.  Nothing creates conflict more than the disclosure of an issue after it is too late to be addressed. A Clear Definition of What is “Unexpected.”  The parties may wish to consider  what constitutes an event giving rise to delay.  This may sound counter-intuitive, but parties can contractually agree upon what is not contemplated.  If weather is to be an issue, the parties may wish to define “abnormal weather” and what weather conditions are not contemplated in the original pricing.  Parties can also factor the impact of labor issues, escalation, and delays by government authorities.  A good “force majeure” clause will not only address what constitutes circumstances beyond the parties control, but how to address those circumstances should they arise, and what is recoverable if a delay is caused by unforeseen events. Proactive Meetings (not e-mails or letters) to Address Changed Circumstances.  All of us are accustomed to communicating through e-mail and text. While these are useful tools, there is no substitute for regular face-to-face meetings among all stakeholders.  Create a contractual provision requiring that all members of the project team meet regularly to address changed circumstances and create constructive solutions.  Deferring changes to the end of the project invariably leads to conflict. A Fair and Efficient Claims Procedure.  Much like war, conflict among stakeholders is inevitable on construction projects.  Addressing the protocols on how to deal with conflict is much easier before a dispute arises.  Create a step by step procedure that leads to expedited and cost effective dispute resolution.  As an initial step, remove those closest from the circumstances that led to the dispute, since they likely have an emotional attachment that can taint their ability to reach a fair resolution.  If possible, agree before the project starts on a third party neutral whom the stakeholders trust to offer his or her own guidance on a resolution.  Nobody wins if the parties are in court years after the project was completed. Much as in war, the most effective way to control chaos and calamity on a construction project is to be prepared for those conditions in advance..  Project teams are well advised to define potential project concerns up front, and to create the appropriate mechanisms to address the unexpected well before battle.

Visit Blog