ConsensusDOCS General Contracting Contractual Relationships (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have discussed the ConsensusDOCS here at Musings on a few occasions.  These relatively new form documents, endorsed by the AGC among other trade organizations, are a great counterpoint to the AIA documents that we all are more than familiar with and as construction attorneys and contractors have likely reviewed on numerous occasions.

Recently, these documents have joined the parade and have taken to the cloud.  The folks at ConsensusDOCS made this move to ease the type of collaboration that I have discussed must occur on construction projects among the players.  The use of the cloud based technology is one of the first uses of this technology to increase productivity.

Of course, like with any form documents, either use the ConsensusDOCS as written or not at all because they have been drafted to work together as written.  Changing the wording of any set of form contracts in places aside from the “fill in the blank” areas can only lead to inconsistencies and work for your lawyer should something go wrong.

I encourage you to review the ConsensusDOCS and poke around the new web based interface and then come back and let me know what you think.

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Musings will be leaving the “green” reservation for a bit and discussing more mundane, though no less relevant, issues that arise in the construction world.

One interesting note is that the Virginia Storm Water Regulations were recently updated and are open to public comment. If you are affected by these regulations, be sure to make your voice heard.

On the construction law front, the Virginia courts are busy as always.  Two recent cases stand out to me.  The first is a Virginia Supreme Court case, Dunn Construction Company, Inc. et. al. v. Cloney.  In Dunn Construction, the home builder admittedly failed to meet the plans and specifications when constructing the home, in particular the foundation wall.  The contractor then “repaired” the wall and claimed openly that it had filled the repaired wall with rebar and reinforced the “cells” with concrete. After this representation (that turned out to be false), Mr. Cloney got a structural engineer to inspect the wall and determined that the contractor did not do what he said he’d done.  Of course, litigation ensued.  Along with the compensatory damages for breach of contract, the trial court granted Mr. Cloney punitive damages for the fraud of the contractor.  The Virginia Supreme Court reversed the punitive award, and restated its long standing position that where a duty comes from a contract, no common law tort action can go forward.

What makes this case interesting is it’s extension of the so called “economic loss rule” to a case of a representation that is seemingly outside of the contract itself. Dunn Construction represented, after the contract was supposedly complete, that it had performed certain remedial measures that were not readily apparent from a visual inspection.  Despite this fact, the Court found the duty to repair and honestly state the extent of the repairs arose from the contract, i. e. without the contract, the representation never would have occurred, and therefore a tort action for fraud could not go forward and punitive damages were unavailable.

The second case of note is Abacus Construction Company, Inc. v. Milestone Construction Services, Inc..  Without going into the major details of each and every claim and back charge involved in Abacus, suffice it to say that both sides had “change orders” that constituted a majority of the claims in the case.  The Court went through each claim, compared it to the contract language and the scope of work outlined in the contract before determining if the additional charges were allowable.  Much of Abacus’ claim was disallowed because “change orders” either were not in writing or described work that fell within the original scope of the contract.  Additionally, the terms of the contract at issue allowed Milestone to recover 10% overhead on their back charges and its attorney fees.

The takeaway from these two cases? The Dunn Construction and Abacus Construction cases show just how serious the Virginia courts are about contracts.  Your contracts are essentially the “law” for your project.  As a contractor or subcontractor, the contract is the road map for all of your remedies and risks, so they need to be taken seriously and drafted carefully.  Musings has discussed the importance of contracts on numerous occasions, and the Virginia courts consistently re-emphasize this importance.  To make sure that these contracts are drafted properly and used correctly, get the assistance of an experienced construction attorney.

As always, your comments are welcome and encouraged.  If you find this interesting, please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Image from FreeFoto.com.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Painted relief map of the state of Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the economy the way that it is, my mechanic’s lien practice (and bond claim practice for that matter) is thriving.  Interestingly, the recent uptick in the construction economic landscape here in Virginia caused me to get more, rather than fewer, calls requesting help with the filing or defense of mechanic’s liens.

As I go through each of the claims with the proverbial fine toothed comb (and with an eye to the fact that these creatures of statute are tricky beasts) I am struck by the fact that the owner of the construction project listed on the construction contract is often a different person or legal entity than the entity that owns the ground under the building.  This issue is more complicated when your work is only on a portion of a property that houses multiple street addresses.

As is clear from the mechanic’s lien statute (Va. Code 43-1 and following) that failure to properly name the owner of the property can be fatal to the lien, getting this preliminary question answered correctly is key.

Because even the seemingly simplest of commercial construction projects can have these types of wrinkles, every Virginia construction lawyer needs to be sure to get a title search performed on the property by a well qualified title examiner.  If you, as the attorney, are qualified to do so, then even better.  Just make sure that you’re thorough and know the recording systems of the county or city clerk’s office in the jurisdiction where you plan to record your lien.

In sum, be sure to thoroughly check the title of the land under the project prior to recording a lien, you will be glad you did.

PS- Check out the ALPS411 blog for my latest post on May 2, 2012

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Newport News, Virginia U.S. Post Office and Court House (1941) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, I’m back from vacation and almost dug out from under the stack that was on my desk when I returned and can now get back to Musings.  Thanks for awaiting my return (I’m sure it was with baited breath )

I have spoken here at Construction Law Musings on the Dragas line of cases that essentially came to the conclusion that no good deed goes unpunished.  Just last week, while I was happily at the beach, the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court decided a case that required an insurer to defend a Chinese Drywall claim against a general contractor.

In Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parallel Design & Development LLC the Court considered a declaratory judgment action by the insurer, Builders Mutual, where the insurer attempted to utilize the “Your Work” and pollution exclusions to try and avoid providing a defense to Parallel.  In that case, a homeowner filed a claim in Virginia state court seeking damages for the health and other noxious effects of the Chinese drywall found in her home and for the cost of medical monitoring required due to these effects.  Of course, Parallel sought to invoke its rights under its insurance policy.

Upon hearing the arguments by Builders Mutual (many of which were strikingly similar to those made in the Dragas cases), the Newport News, VA division of the Eastern District of Virginia determined that Builders Mutual did have to provide a defense and possible indemnity for these damages.  In making this decision, the Court determined that the term “pollutant” found in the policy was ambiguous and therefore the ambiguity worked against the insurer.  Furthermore, it determined that the localized nature of the issue made this particular type of noxious emission fall outside of the typical environmental pollution.

The Court went on to conclude that because some, if not all, of the claims made by the homeowner fell outside of the property damage scope of the “Your Work” exclusion in the policy, Builders Mutual was obligated to defend Parallel.  In short, Builders Mutual was on the hook to provide a defense.

Without seeing the particular language of the policy at issue, I cannot give my take on why this conclusion was different from some of those in the Dragas cases.  All I can say is that a careful reading of your CGL policy with the help of an experienced construction attorney is key to arguing these types of claims.

What are your thoughts?

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

A recent case brought to my attention by Melissa Brumback (@melissabrumback) of the Construction Law in North Carolina Blog reminded me of the necessity to both include change order provisions in your construction contracts and to follow them.  In the case of Artistic Stone v. Safeco in the Norfolk, VA Federal Court (linked from and thoroughly discussed in Melissa’s great post here), the court refused to let a claim for extra work proceed where the plaintiff failed to properly follow the written change order requirements of the contract.

I look at the Artistic Stone case as a good reminder to read and follow the provisions of the construction contract documents governing the construction project on which you are working.  It is also a reminder that courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia will strictly construe and enforce those written provisions.  The assistance of an experienced construction attorney can help you assure that these written contract provisions are properly drafted.

The Virginia courts’ strict enforcement of written contracts is not all bad.  In fact, when construction professionals acknowledge that gentleman’s agreements and unwritten “deals” are not the way to go and that they can make their own law in their written documents, certainty and a better project can follow.  Written change order provisions are great tools to assure that everyone knows the scope, timing and price of any change order prior to work being performed.  Such provisions (despite their seemingly adding an unnecessary layer to an already paperwork heavy project) allow for all parties to know their rights and obligations.

These provisions cut both ways.  A general contractor that requires written change orders will know what it is paying for.  A subcontractor will know what it needs to do to get paid.  Granted, on the fly decisions will have to be made at times that can go outside of the normal change order process.  However, in the days of blackberries, I-Phones and e-mail, at the very least an e-mail exchange (followed by a formal change order request) should acknowledge the scope and price to be paid for any change in work.  Absent even this minimal amount of paperwork, the subcontractor risks non-payment and the general contractor risks paying for an uncertain scope of work.  In either case, the Virginia courts will not have any sympathy for the aggrieved party should it have to go to court to enforce the rights it thought it had.

In sum, make sure your construction contracts have written change order provisions and that these provisions, and the other written provisions of your contract, are followed in practice at the job site.  Failure to do so can result in disaster. . . just ask Artistic Stone.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Mechanic’s liens are a powerful tool when used correctly. However, as I have discussed on numerous occasions here and elsewhere, these tools must be wielded correctly if they are to be effective.

Another case in point occurred recently in the Hanover, VA Circuit Court. In Dallan Construction Co. v. Super Structures General Contractors Inc. (Harris, J.) No. CL08-473, Jan. 30, 2009, the Court considered the question of what can be included in a mechanics lien.

Super Structures filed a mechanic’s lien for the value of work performed and materials that it ordered in preparation for doing work for Dallan Construction. Dallan canceled the project before Super Structures began work or delivered any materials to the site.

The Court determined that Super Structures’ lien was invalid because Super Structures had not provided labor or materials to the site. In short, unless you have labor or materials incorporated into or delivered to a job site you cannot properly file a mechanic’s lien in Virginia.

While this case is a Circuit Court (trial court) case, I think that it is fundamentally correct. A mechanic’s lien is a remedy that is meant to allow a construction professional to recover for the labor provided to improve a piece of property. Unless your materials and labor actively improve the real estate at the project site (for example, providing silt fencing allowing the project to commence), you should not be able to lien that project.

A lien is not a substitute for a breach of contract suit. A contract generally contains remedies that are unavailable by pursuing a mechanic’s lien and vice versa. Many times the two actions are simultaneous (and, for reasons that I will leave for a later date, many times must be enforced simultaneously if you wish to pursue both). Because a lien remedy and a contract remedy are separate, you can pursue your contract remedy even if you cannot pursue a lien.

My suggestions? Talk to an experienced construction attorney early in the construction process so that you can evaluate your options. Also, if you do in fact have lien rights, file earlier rather than later in today’s economic climate.

Please let me know your thoughts with a comment below.  I encourage you to subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Image via Wikipedia

Musings thought that it would step away from its discussion of “green” construction to discuss a few interesting construction cases that came down recently in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The first of these is another warning to contractors that arbitration provisions can be waived by conduct.  In Shoosmith Bros., Inc. v. Hopewell Nursing Home, the Hopewell Circuit Court of Virginia found that Kenbridge Construction Company’s waived its right to arbitration by its use of the Courts for a substantial period of time and its use of the discovery “machinery” of the Court.  In short, if you want to enforce an arbitration clause, do it early to avoid an argument that you have waived arbitration.

The second case is in relation to mechanic’s liens.  I find this one interesting because the Court actually refused to invalidate a lien for a minor inaccuracy in the description of the work performed.  In B.P. Realty LP v. Urban Eng’g Associates, Inc. et. al., the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court refused to invalidate a lien because the engineering firm and defendant in the case failed to include the word “surveying” in its description of the work.  The court held that this is an excusable inaccuracy.

This is significant because, as I have discussed on numerous occasions here at Musings, Virginia mechanic’s liens are extremely picky in their enforcement.  While I would not take this case to allow any inaccuracy that is more significant than that described here, it needs to be pointed out that you are not without arguments against claims that your lien is invalid due to a minor inaccuracy.

The third case I felt needed a mention is S. B. Ballard Construction Co. v. LGS Group, LLC, et. al.. In this case, the Court give a quick reminder that, in Virginia, it is very hard to make a contract claim into one for fraud, negligence or conspiracy.  The economic loss rule in Virginia prohibits any claim that could arise from the contract from being prosecuted as a tort claim instead of a contract claim.

In a fourth set of consolidated cases, the Norfolk Circuit Court held that the language found in Va. Code Sections 43-11 and 43-7 invalidated a subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien, despite non-payment to the general contractor, where an owner expressly conditioned payment to the general contractor upon its obtaining financing, diligently sought financing and was unable to obtain that financing.  The Norfolk Circuit Court also discussed estoppel and waiver and I commend reading this case to all who are interested in construction contracts and liens.

If you find this and other Musings helpful or interesting, please let me know by a comment below and please subscribe to keep up with the latest Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome a good friend, Brett Marston. Brett is the head of the construction law practice group at Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore in Roanoke, Va. and a member of the firm’s management committee.  He is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has extensive experience in construction contract negotiations and preparation, payment disputes, mechanic’s liens, bond claims, construction defects, delay claims, insurance, litigation, and OSHA matters. He handles significant construction matters in federal and state courts, arbitration, and mediation for general contractors, subcontractors, owners, design professionals, and suppliers.  Brett is a 1993 graduate, with honors, from the George Mason University School of Law, and a 1990 graduate of the University of Virginia.  Prior to starting with Gentry Locke in 1994, Brett was a law clerk to the Honorable J. Calvit Clarke, Jr., Sr. Judge of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Division).

In the spirit of the word “musings,” I’d like to offer some thoughts I have about several construction law and construction litigation topics.

First, one of the most prevalent incongruities I see in the contract documents I review during litigation, and one that could be easily corrected, is the lack of coordination of the front-end contract documents for construction projects.  Often owners leave these to the design professionals to prepare as part of the Construction Documents.  While preparing project drawings and specifications is best placed in the hands of design professionals, it is a bit much to ask them to also be responsible for preparing the contract, including the general conditions and supplemental general conditions, between the owner and the general contractor or construction manager.  This should be coordinated by the owner’s counsel to make sure that the contract for construction is correct in form and content, and that it syncs up with other contracts for the project and state law.  Recently, I have seen contracts where the names of the parties are not included correctly, for example, where they are listed as the “name you hear on the radio commercial” rather than the name listed on the State Corporation Commission website.  This can have legal effects later on, depending upon who signs that contract, in what capacity, etc.  I have even seen contracts for public entities that do not include provisions required by the Virginia Public Procurement Act.  Further, the owner may have contractual obligations to a lender or some third-party that requires certain provisions be included in that construction agreement.  An experienced attorney can be beneficial in this process to ensure that the contract complies with the other project documents and the law.

Second, does anyone remember how the new “paperless” and “email communication” world was going to make life so much easier?  In the world of construction litigation, it has certainly provided much more fodder for discovery and in many instances unexpected entertainment when e-mails are produced in litigation that were never meant to see the light of day.  More than anything, though, it has drastically changed how construction cases are litigated, and how much they cost the client to handle.  The massive number of e-mails exchanged between the owner, general contractor, architects, and subcontractors simply make construction litigation more expensive.

Third, as this blog has previously covered in detail, the recent efforts in the General Assembly to amend the notice requirements for the filing of mechanic’s liens is most interesting.  If there was ever a collection of statutes that could be described as a “house of cards,” it is the Virginia mechanic’s lien statutes, because of the many inter-linked requirements built into the statutes and the strict interpretation of these statutes by Virginia courts. Moving and tinkering with just one piece of these statutes will impact other aspects.  The recent legislative efforts (HB 1265) to require earlier notice to owners of real estate by persons intending to file mechanic’s liens is a prime example of dangerous tinkering.  Although a layperson may perceive the changes originally proposed in HB 1265 as a reasonable suggestion, these proposed changes might have completely negated the efforts to grant mechanic’s and materialmen statutory lien rights to provide protection in the event of nonpayment.  Requiring written notice to the owner more than 60 days before a claimant records a memorandum of mechanic’s lien would lead to an unnecessary increase in dispute-oriented paperwork on construction projects where payments often lag by more than 30 days, but are ultimately paid in the normal course of business.  The substitute bill that recently passed the House of Delegates is viewed by most as a sufficient compromise, however, should HB 1265 become law, subcontractors and suppliers to residential construction projects need to be aware of, and comply with, the new notice requirements.  Even more, great care needs to be taken in modifying one aspect of this “house of cards” set of statutes, lest the entire structure be damaged.

For my final musing, I encourage attorneys who practice construction law and government contracting in Virginia ─ whether as a  predominant part of their practice or not ─ to get involved with the Virginia State Bar Construction Law and Public Contracts section.  I currently serve as the Vice Chair and look forward to chairing that section’s Board of Governors starting in mid-June.  Involvement in this group is an excellent way to network with other attorneys practicing in this interesting and challenging area of law, to share ideas, and to be a part of a network of attorneys (including this blog’s author who is a member of the Board).  If you haven’t attended the Section’s annual seminar, you should put November 2-3, 2012 on your calendar to be with us in Charlottesville, Va. at the Boar’s Head Inn.  The conference planning committee, headed by Shannon Briglia, is well on its way to planning another strong program.

As always, Brett and I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Earlier here at Musings, I opined that sometimes the old saw about no good deed goes unpunished applies to construction.  The subject of that post was litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court between a contractor who reached an informal settlement with certain homeowners relating to Chinese drywall damages.  On March 24, 2010, the Virginia court dismissed a counterclaim by the builder seeking to have the insurer pay its remediation costs with leave for the builder to amend its counterclaim.  In the earlier opinion, the Court cited a lack of factual support for any litigation or threatened litigation that would show that the builder was under a legal obligation to pay damages in a way that would put it under the insuring agreement.

Well, the builder did just that and added certain language to the amended counterclaim that, this time, survived dismissal.  In Dragas II, Judge Smith cited certain amendments, among them the factual allegation that the settlement was in response to four lawsuits by owners.  Judge Smith determined that this allegation of threatened litigation was enough to survive a motion to dismiss.  Judge Smith then went on to consider other defenses of the insurers, including the “voluntary payments” provision of the policy, and rejected those arguments as well.

I highly recommend this opinion and Judge Smith’s prior opinion to any lawyer or contractor who is faced with the situation of trying to be reimbursed by an insurance company for its pro-active stance toward remediation of potential defects.  These two opinions outline the pleading requirements in stark contrast because of the differing results (though Judge Smith is careful to point out that she makes no ruling on the ability of Dragas to prove its factual allegations).

In sum, while the prior Dragas opinion seems to work against the “good Samaritan” who seeks to act proactively, this latest opinion seems to remove contractors from the Gordian knot (hat tip to Tim Hughes (@vaconstruction)) of either fixing a problem and potentially losing coverage, or waiting to get sued.  Of course, a careful reading of these opinions and the advice of a Virginia construction attorney prior to taking action will go a long way toward determining if your circumstances are such that the proactive approach is the legally sound one.

UPDATE: For more good analysis on this case, check out my friend Tim Hughes’ discussion from his blog.

Image via stock.xchng.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Douglas Reiser.  Doug (@douglasreiser) is a business attorney & LEED AP in Seattle, Washington. He is the principal at

Many ages ago, I contributed to the Musings with a post about construction document management. Yep, an attorney taking the time to remind contractors that managing documents efficiently and electronically was smart and cheap.

I have contributed at least four articles to the Musings. There was an article on contractor UCC rights, one about green building certification and one about dispute resolution provisions for your construction contract. While useful, and certainly more legal focused, they weren’t my most important message. Smart documentation is that big message.

As a lawyer, I have wrestled with the worst of files. Unorganized boxes of torn and tattered documents that will never make it through a scanner. Sadly, I will also admit that I have yet to see the best of files. The automatically-synced, wholly electronic, digitally tagged and searchable construction file? It has been a myth.

Nowadays, we are seeing a big blend: a mix of paper records, electronic records and paper and electronic records. While this is a step in the right direction, it doesn’t change the amount of review time invested by your legal counsel, your surety or your insurer.

A recent article in Engineering-News Record paints the collection cost picture quite well. Collecting your project documents has become such a chore for attorneys that their bills are exceeding the value of the claims they are defending!  Collection procedures and costs have become so unsavory that lawyers have suggested using a contract clause to prohibit discovery of electronic mail, one of the most troubling sources of data to sift through.  The article suggests that some attorneys opine that a judge will honor the clause (and I am not so sure). But how can we expect to exclude such valuable written evidence from the courtroom?!  Why not just make it easier to attain?

The problem that I see is that everyone wants only use part of the digital world. For example: “let us use e-mail to communicate, but print out 100 page notices to send via UPS.” The bigger problem might not be that we require that these records get printed, but that we don’t scan and keep a digital copy.  We just have our e-mail in the e-file – and the stuff that came in the mail in the box file.

Once contractors truly realize how costly document collection and investigation has become, perhaps they will finally acknowledge that its time to make a change. If your subcontractor keeps messing things up and costing you three times what you could pay another subcontractor – you’d fire that subcontractor. Why not fire your document system?

So what can you do to be better? This was the same question posed to my colleague Chris Cheatham, who came to me to help find an answer. When we birthed ClaimKit last month, our goal was to fix bad files.  Since then, we have decided that we should be focused on preventing bad files from ever happening. Regardless of what the file looks like when you find it, the goal is to quickly deliver an attractive, accessible, easily navigable and shareable file.

Here are a few hints that all contractors should consider to help tame their file:

What you can do right now:

• It’s not just your file – Contractors need to be aware that they are not the only person who has to rely on their file. Their surety, insurer, accountant and attorney each might take a pass.  Turning over that file is likely to happen, and the longer it takes them sort it through, the more cost to you.

• Scan & file - Scan all records as they come in and store them in document-specific folders. Think about the easiest way to locate a record. It’s not by flipping through a box, and it’s not by sifting through a single folder titled “Name of Project.” The best way is to create a project folder filled with subfolders, and then to place each type of document in a specific folder (i.e. a change order goes in a folder called “change order”). Easy for your project staff to find it, and easy for your lawyer as well.
• Use a shared file -  I used to refer to this as the cloud, but really it’s a “shared file.” Software from Dropbox, ShareFile, Box.net, and other file storage services allow you to create a folder and share it with others. That way, everyone on the project can centrally store all records from the project. The office assistant can scan a copy of a recently received submittal and drop it in the folder, the project manager can drag an email from his mailbox and drop it in the folder, and the contract admin can drop a copy of the latest subcontractor proposal in the folder.  Easy, accessible, and shareable.
• Centralize – A single copy of each of your documents needs to be in one place. Duplication and division of documents is a killer. Utilize a shared folder system that stores all records, like the one discussed above and reduce duplicate copies.

What you can do when its time to turn a file over:

• Talk first, then react –  Sureties, insurers and attorneys are getting better at document collection. Talk to them before you do anything with your file. Your actions, though rooted in good intention, might make it worse.
• Permit collection at the source  - The document collection process is so very important – and where you can save money. The closer that a collector can get to the original file, the better and cheaper the file will be to construct. So before you tell your surety, insurer or attorney that you will send it all over, consider letting them send a scanning vendor to the site or your office to quickly scan and upload records.
• Code at the source - Thumbing through documents is a terrible task that costs lots of money. When a document is an image file (like a PDF) you cannot get to the meat of the document without seeing what is in the file. If you allow a professional to access your records early in the process, the document can be coded with vital searchable information – like document type, dates, parties involved, or location. That way, if your surety wants to see your permit application – all they have to do is search for it.
• Maintain Native Documents - Don’t bunch up a file to share it. If you keep a decent electronic shared file, share the folder. If it isn’t a shareable file, then consider burning it with all the file names and folders. Your counsel, insurers and sureties do not want a pile of mixed documents – they want small individual docs organized in neat spaces.

Efficient collection, navigable organization, and accessible delivery – these are the credos that make a file effective.  Take steps in 2012 to better your file, save yourself some money and save your risk management partners a headache.

Doug and I encourage your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.