On September 9, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14042, which applies new rules – including vaccination mandates – to Federal contractors and subcontractors. EO 14042 does not include
Continue Reading Executive Order 14042 Survival Guide
Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors
As of January 1, 2018, direct contractors in California who make or take a contract “for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” are jointly and severally liable with their subcontractors for any unpaid wages, fringe benefits and other benefit payments or contributions owed to wage claimants. Governor Brown approved AB 1701 on October 14, 2017. The new law puts the onus on direct contractors to not only monitor their own payroll practices, but to ensure that their subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors are engaging in proper payroll practices.
Continue Reading Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors
AB 1793 Amends Requirements for Contractors to Establish Substantial Compliance With State Contractor Licensing Requirements
On August 30, 2016, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1793, which amends the requirements under Business & Professions Code § 7031 for a contractor to establish “substantial compliance” with state contractor licensing requirements. AB 1793 amends section 7031 by deleting the requirement that to establish substantial compliance, a contractor must show it did not know and reasonably should not have known that it was not licensed at the time it began performing the construction work or contract at issue. The amendments are to become effective January 1, 2017.
Continue Reading AB 1793 Amends Requirements for Contractors to Establish Substantial Compliance With State Contractor Licensing Requirements
Courts Uphold Disgorgement Penalty For Unlicensed Contractors
By Candace L. Matson
As most construction professionals know, California law requires that any person engaged in the business of a contractor, or that acts in the capacity of a contractor, must be properly licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028. A contractor is defined broadly, as follows:
Continue Reading Courts Uphold Disgorgement Penalty For Unlicensed Contractors
The President Admits the Stimulus Is Not Working as Hoped. Well, Duh.
The author is a member of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.
The Administration has conceded that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) has not worked as planned. With unemployment numbers continuing to climb, the Administration now acknowledges it “misread the economy.” But from the beginning not everyone believed ARRA would achieve the desired stimulative effect. After all, $787 billion cannot be disbursed without some complication.Continue Reading The President Admits the Stimulus Is Not Working as Hoped. Well, Duh.
Recovery Act Update -U.S. Stimulus: “Buy American” PRC Stimulus: “Buy Chinese” Canada and WTO: “Not Pleased”
The author is a member of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5), known popularly by a variety of names, including “ARRA,” the “Recovery Act,” and the “Stimulus Act.” We have previously discussed many of the provisions relating to the Recovery Act at some length, especially the implementing regulations that were recently published this spring.Continue Reading Recovery Act Update -U.S. Stimulus: “Buy American” PRC Stimulus: “Buy Chinese” Canada and WTO: “Not Pleased”
New Recovery Act Rules Implement Provisions Relating To Government Audit Access, Whistleblower Protections, And Buy American Requirements; Much Confusion Remains
The author is a member of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.
On March 31, 2009, the FAR Councils issued several new interim rules (effective March 31, 2009) implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (also known as ARRA, The Recovery Act, or the Stimulus Act). See Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-32, published at 74 Federal Register 14621-14652. The FAC issued new interim rules on a number of areas required under the Stimulus Act, including:
- Reporting Requirements for Recipients of Recovery Funds (see 74 Federal Register 14639)
- Publicizing Contract Actions (see 74 Federal Register 14636)
- GAO and IG Access to Company Employees (see 74 Federal Register 14646)
- Whistleblower Protections (see 74 Federal Register 14633)
- Buy American Requirements for Construction Materials (see 74 Federal Register 14623)
This blog focuses on the final three sets of rules – those relating to Auditor access; Whistleblower protections; and Buy American requirements. The first set of rules is discussed separately here.Continue Reading New Recovery Act Rules Implement Provisions Relating To Government Audit Access, Whistleblower Protections, And Buy American Requirements; Much Confusion Remains
Stimulation Has Its Price – The Audit and Oversight Provisions of The 2009 Stimulus Bill Are Unlike Anything Most Funding Recipients Have Ever Seen
The author is a member of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 ("the Act" or "the Stimulus Bill") (P.L. 111-5) (H.R. 1). As widely reported in the media, the Stimulus Bill includes approximately $787 Billion in government spending and tax cuts. With regard to the government spending provisions (Division A of the Act, which appropriates approximately $520 Billion), the U.S. Government (as well as the State and local governments receiving this money) will disburse the funds through a number of different vehicles – namely government contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions. The legislation is intended to deal with, on an expedited basis, economic conditions that many Americans have not experienced in their lifetimes and for which they want an accelerated cure. Those familiar with the federal acquisition and grant processes, however, know that immediacy is not built into those processes. Moreover, to the extent that the “need for speed” overtakes process, recipients of the funds will almost assuredly find themselves downrange from one of the most rigorous oversight regimes ever enacted. Companies, and even States and localities – should familiarize themselves with the full terms of the Faustian bargain they will be striking.Continue Reading Stimulation Has Its Price – The Audit and Oversight Provisions of The 2009 Stimulus Bill Are Unlike Anything Most Funding Recipients Have Ever Seen
Free Trade Agreements, “Made In America,” and The 2009 Stimulus Package – Country of Origin Requirements Remain an Elusive Compliance Obligation
The author is a member of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.
On January 15, 2009, the Government issued a final rule adjusting the dollar thresholds at which the Trade Agreements Act ("TAA") applies to U.S. Government procurements. See 74 Federal Register 2745. The changes were originally enacted as an interim rule in February 2008 (see 73 Federal Register 10962 and 73 Federal Register 16747; see also 72 Federal Register 71166; 72 Federal Register 73904), raising the threshold to account for inflation from $193,000 to $194,000 for most procurements involving countries that have agreed to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement ("WTO GPA"). For other Free Trade Agreements ("FTAs") with countries such as Australia, Mexico, and Singapore, the threshold is raised from $64,786 to $67,826. Details on the application of the TAA and the revised thresholds are outlined in FAR Subpart 25.4.Continue Reading Free Trade Agreements, “Made In America,” and The 2009 Stimulus Package – Country of Origin Requirements Remain an Elusive Compliance Obligation
The AIA Releases 2007 Editions of Its Construction Contract Forms Amid Competition from Upstart “ConsensusDOCS” Forms
For the first time in a decade, the American Institute of Architects ("AIA") revised several of the key standard forms of contract it publishes for use on construction projects. The various AIA forms are widely used as the starting point for negotiating the terms of contracts between various project participants. The AIA last revised its key documents in 1997.Continue Reading The AIA Releases 2007 Editions of Its Construction Contract Forms Amid Competition from Upstart “ConsensusDOCS” Forms
New Legislation Affects Allocation of Risk in Residential Construction Contracts
New Legislation Creates Additional Carve-out
Legislation effective January 1, 2006 (AB 758), amending California Civil Code §2782, creates a further exception to parties’ ability to negotiate indemnity terms in construction agreements. AB 758 has been touted as addressing the “insurance crisis” of residential subcontractors. Some opine that, viewed in conjunction with SB 800 (Civil Code, Title 7, “Requirements for Actions for Construction Defects”), it prohibits builders from pushing down their strict liability obligations onto subcontractors through indemnity agreements. Others maintain that it basically deals with an issue of fairness, i.e., whether liability is fairly imposed on subcontractors.Continue Reading New Legislation Affects Allocation of Risk in Residential Construction Contracts