Scott M. Bennett

The firm’s client was the low bidder for a public school construction project.  The client received a bid protest from the second low bidder on the grounds the client’s listed subcontractors were not qualified to perform the work as required by the specifications.  The firm responded to the bid protest using its technical knowledge of bidding laws to establish the protest was improper.  The firm demonstrated the protest was hypothetical and its client had multiple options for satisfying all qualification requirements of the project specifications prior to commencing performance.  The awarding body agreed with the firm, and the project was awarded to the firm’s client.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett

The firm represented a prime contractor and its surety defending a lawsuit by an electrical subcontractor in connection with its work on a water treatment plant.  The electrical subcontractor filed suit before its work on the project was complete, and sought considerable damages for subcontract balance, change order work, delay damages, and enforcement of a stop payment notice.  The prime contractor disputed the claim due to defects in the subcontractors work, and believed the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, was responsible for delays on the project.  The firm undertook the defense of the prime contractor, filed a cross-complaint, and through the course of discovery, assisted the prime contractor to assert its affirmative claims.  The firm demonstrated the subcontractor’s claims were significantly less than the amounts being sought.  After a series of negotiations with the electrical subcontractor, the firm obtained resolution at a significant discount to the prime contractor’s total exposure, and the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett

The firm represented the low bidder in connection with the award of a County contract for certain highway improvements, following a hard bid process.  The low bidder received a bid protest on the grounds it did not satisfy the licensure requirements for the project.  Based on a careful reading of the project specifications and the County’s bid solicitation, the firm determined its client could satisfy the requirements if it acted swiftly to secure the necessary licensure certifications. The firm assisted the client to expedite its certification application with the Contractors State License Board and advocated on behalf of the client to assure the County the low bidder could timely meet all necessary requirements for the project.  The County accepted the firm’s representations, the project was awarded to the low bidder client, and the client received the necessary certification in time to proceed with the project.

Counsel: Scott M. Bennett

The firm defended a prime contractor and its surety from a lawsuit by an electrical subcontractor in connection with the renovation and conversion of a City library.  After repeated delays with the subcontractor’s performance and an emotionally charged on site altercation, the prime contractor made the decision to supplement the subcontractor’s performance and to back charge the subcontractor for the cost of completion.  In response, the subcontractor filed suit, asserting extensive damages for subcontract balance, approved change orders, prompt payment penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Rather than respond to the lawsuit, the firm recognized the case as being ripe for mediation and determined its efforts would be best devoted to negotiation.  The firm articulated its client’s claims, and demonstrated to the subcontractor the circumstances had given both parties’ claims that could lead to a messy and complicated litigation.  The parties agreed to appoint a mediator, and through a series of written and in person negotiations, achieved a mutually agreeable resolution that accounted for both parties’ principal claims.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton, Scott M. Bennett, and Jacob W. Goldschlag

The firm represented a prime contractor in connection with a claim asserted by its underground utilities subcontractor on a project for the construction of public school classrooms.  The prime contractor faced a substantial delay and inefficiency claim from its subcontractor arising from nationwide supply chain issues, that caused significant project delays and mandated extensive resequencing of the subcontractor’s work.  The parties commenced arbitration and the firm assisted the prime contractor to prepare its own claims based on the subcontractor’s self-inflicted delays and inefficiencies.  In addition, the firm identified technical defenses based on the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the subcontract.  With the support of the firm, the prime contractor maximized its recovery by passing through the subcontractor delay claims to the project owner, and after receiving partial reimbursement, was able to negotiate a discounted settlement that extinguished the subcontractors’ claims, and secured a complete dismissal of the arbitration.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett

The firm represented the prime contractor constructing a water reclamation and treatment project for a large water district.  The project involved construction of novel UV treatment technology resulting in a series of substantial design changes and project delays throughout.  The prime contractor engaged the firm early in the project, allowing the firm to provide support throughout the project – which spanned over several years – monitoring project delays, drafting key correspondence, advising on the collection of added costs, and collaborating with experts to track and record key project impacts.

The Firm’s Early Involvement Was Instrumental To Positive Resolution.

At the conclusion of the project, the prime contractor was owed several million dollars by the public agency comprised primarily of extended general conditions and change order work.  However, the district asserted a substantial liquidated damages claim which it contended nullified the prime contractor’s claims, and sought payment of damages in excess of a million dollars.  Fortunately, due to the firm’s early involvement, the prime contractor was properly positioned to defend the owner’s claim and prosecute its own claims for damages.  The firm represented the prime contractor in the contractual and statutory claims procedures, participated in various face-to-face negotiations with the district, and secured a multi-million dollar settlement.  The prime contractor paid no liquidated damages and recovered a the majority of its damages. The dispute was settled without the need for litigation.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett

The firm represented a prime contractor in arbitration relating to two projects; the construction of an art gallery and renovations of a school gymnasium.  The prime contractor was defending claims from its demolition subcontractor on both projects, which was seeking considerable damages for additional work, as well as claims for interest, prompt payment penalties, and attorneys’ fees.  The subcontractor contended the added work at issue was excluded from its subcontract, and did not appear on the demolition plans for either project.  The subcontractor refused the prime contractor’s attempts to settle the claims early on in the arbitration, leaving the firm’s client with no option but to defend the claims. After multiple days of arbitration, the firm had dismantled the subcontractor’s claims by presenting a series of factual and contractual defenses.  Before the final decision was rendered, the prime contractor made a final offer to settle, and obtained a settlement for a fraction of the principal claims at issue.  Through its vigorous advocacy at arbitration, the firm was able to defend all claims for penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett

The firm defended a prime contractor from a lawsuit by a plumbing subcontractor in connection with the construction of an aquatics center.  Before the project was complete, the plumbing subcontractor filed suit to enforce a stop notice which included retention and a mix of approved and unapproved change orders.  The subcontractor also asserted unwarranted claims for prompt payment penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees.  The firm evaluated the claims and identified a series of contractual and statutory defenses.  The firm recommended our client make an early strategic Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer.  By doing so, the prime contractor was able to achieve a settlement at a discount from the principal balance, and avoided incurring any liability for prompt payment penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees.  The lawsuit was resolved without the prime contractor ever making an appearance in the case.

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton and Scott M. Bennett