Carefully negotiating the terms, including what may be considered purely business or technical terms (the “boilerplate”), is an investment that may save an owner significant time and resources during and after construction.
The biofuels industry has transitioned from a once cautious use of DBCs to a saturation of DBC forms from the American Institute of Architects, the Design/Build Institute of America, Associated General Contractors of America and other reputable sources. Each organization has forms that are excellent starting points, but according to their own sources, they should be used as guides and not blindly accepted. Also, the increasing number of developers in the biofuels construction industry has produced a new generation of “hybrid” construction documents which take elements from different DBC contracts. The forms are essentially a “cafeteria-style” approach to contract formation as they deviate, sometimes substantially, from standard industry documents. While this deviation is not an unpardonable sin, making certain that all the parties are in agreement with all of the terms of the DBC can be like learning to ride a bike for the first time—without the training wheels.
Each biodiesel project has unique requirements which must be considered at the DBC negotiation stage in order to address the owner’s goals. The industry is accustomed to a “design/build bid contract” or “design/build lump sum contract” with fairly standard terms. Yet, one can skim no further than the definitions section of hybrid DBCs and discover awkward shifts of duties and responsibilities from the contractor to the owner. While this departs from most independent owner’s expectations, many owners are shocked to discover that their executed DBC reflects this “agreement.”
Article Continues After Advertisement
The most common, yet avoidable, areas of dispute involve poorly defined, inconsistent or insufficiently defined terms in the DBC. If the parties aren’t careful, terms of a DBC can be ambiguous, used incorrectly or assume that each party understands a definition. For example, if you ask 10 people to define “best efforts,” which is a common contract term, you will likely get 10 different answers—even from lawyers. Take into consideration instances when the terms are as technical as a performance guarantee where opinions vary between experts.
In addition to a reputable legal counsel negotiating these points, an experienced owner’s representative can also spot issues for the owner. The owner’s representative can also provide accountability to ensure that the negotiated criteria and other technical aspects are drafted and executed properly.
Other factors of consideration are a matter of common sense. Contracts should avoid dense industry jargon. Implement the “bus stop” approach to contract drafting. If the average person at the bus stop can’t make sense of your agreement, then they won’t be able to understand it when they’re sitting in the jury box and in charge of resolving your contract dispute.
For specific industry terms relating to design criteria, change orders, payments, timing, “substantial completion,” retainage, warranties and dispute avoidance, solid advice from a party who understands how these matters will be resolved if there is a dispute will help build a better contract. For example, change orders often cause difficulties if they aren’t detailed and don’t discuss timing, cost increases and responsibilities. Since change orders are often an exception to the lump-sum requirement of a DBC, owners must overlook the potential for additional costs, time and completion obligations in the balance of the DBC. Court decisions throughout the United States demonstrate that changes not contemplated at the time of contract, even if not documented properly, can be properly awarded against an owner. Just think what would happen when “substantial completion” is not understood among parties, since it does not always mean the ability to produce fuel.
Handling Disputes
Even with the most careful planning and drafting, problems will occur once construction has commenced. As an owner representing shareholders, investors and lenders, there is a tendency to react quickly to keep a project on task. However, reacting too quickly can create ancillary problems that hinder resolving a business issue. The following offers a couple of practical considerations in light of a DBC.
First, carefully review the facts with the relevant DBC provisions and construction binder to confirm the facts and factors of the situation. Second, confirm who bears responsibility for the problem pursuant to the DBC. Third, convene with the owner’s representative and an attorney to review the situation in detail, identifying all of the issues and potential outcomes in order to prepare a response. Be careful to consider all facts and possibilities, including potentially harmful information, since it is easier to deal with negative facts early in the process. Fourth, consider the costs of the alternatives, including the time and frustration that are a part of disputes and, for larger issues, litigation.
If a problem or dispute arises during the construction process, most modern DBCs follow a defined process that may include alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation and arbitration. Careful consideration of the DBC requirements may prevent a problem from growing to an act of default which gives further remedy to either party. By following the proper notice provisions, including the timing requirements, you are adhering to the requirements of the DBC and creating a paper record of events required by insurance or used if litigation occurs. A problem doesn’t have to stop the construction process. However, any indication that the problem is not going to be resolved in a reasonable manner may have broader implications for the project.
Failed negotiations usually lead to a form of ADR. Most modern DBCs contemplate non-binding mediation, followed by either binding arbitration or litigation. Mediation is non-binding and less formal than either arbitration or litigation. A well-drafted DBC will state that the goal of mediation is to get the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve a dispute. The mediator is usually an impartial industry expert, attorney or retired judge who has no formal power to force a settlement, but instead may help each party identify strengths and weaknesses with their case and offer creative methods to reach an agreement.
| 1 2 | Next Page --> | |
| View Entire Article | ||