Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Contractors and friends support boatshop revamp

Thursday, August 7th, 2014

In the fall of 2012, AGC’s Seattle District began a partnership with the Center for Wooden Boats (CWB) to improve and repair CWB facilities. The most difficult project to come out of the relationship was the installation of a hoist system to mechanically raise historic small craft out of the water and into the floating boatshop.

 

This complex project was designed and engineered under the supervision of Dan Chandler at OAC Services and his team of professionals. OAC redesigned the existing boatshop by changing the roof line at the north end of the shop and strengthening the rafters to accommodate the 30-foot steel I-beam that cantilevers out over the water.

Dan then recruited other northwest companies to build the project. BNBuilders provided a team of carpenters for two weeks to complete the retrofit of the shop and installation of the beam. Additionally, they footed the bill for the construction materials provided at cost by Gray Lumber. BNB also recruited Precision Electric to rewire the area affected by the retrofit. Yakima Steel fabricated and supplied the custom beam for the shop, while Scott Galvanizing of Ballard finished the raw steel. Ballard Hardware donated the trolley for the I-beam, and Al Wirta of Wirta Architectural in Sultan fabricated the overhead winch and pick-frame system capable of pulling a one-ton keelboat out of the water.

In photo, CWB recently hoisted it first historic Blanchard  knock-about  from the water into the boat shed for repairs — a task  that, for thirty  years, had been accomplished with sheer manpower using  a cranky old  float plane drydock.

One more band-aid for highways

Friday, August 1st, 2014

Never mind.  My last post talked about what could happen if Congress lets the federal highway trust fund goes dry.

But, as AGC of America reports, after weeks of back and forth between the House and Senate, a short-term extension of the current transportation authorization with a temporary funding patch for the Highway Trust Fund was passed before Congress left town for its August recess.  The Senate, by a vote of 81 to 13, agreed to drop support for its amended version of HR 5021 after the House earlier in the day voted to reject it. The Senate version  would have reduced the amount of the transfer by $3 billion and set December 19, 2014 as the authorization deadline.

The final bill transfers $10.8 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, allowing the Trust Fund to support an extension of MAP-21 authorization for the highway and transit programs through May 31, 2015. This transfer was necessary to ensure that the trust fund could meet its funding obligations for the duration of the extension.

H.R. 5021 originally passed the House with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority on June 15.  On Tuesday, the Senate voted to amend the House-passed bill to shorten the length of the extension from May 31, 2015, to Dec. 20, 2014, and cut the general fund transfer to the Highway Trust Fund from $11 billion to $8 billion.  The passage of the Senate amendment started a game of legislative ping-pong where the House voted to disagree to the Senate amendment by a vote of 271-149 with 226 Republicans and 45 Democrats voting for and 147 Democrats and two Republicans voting against.  Following House action, the Senate withdrew its amendment and the original House bill was sent to the president.

Federal reimbursements to WSDOT could mean fraction of cash-on-hand

Thursday, July 17th, 2014

The fate of the Highway Trust Fund has been a popular topic in recent media reports. The fund faces potential insolvency unless Congress acts by to prevent that from happening. This is a cause of concern for all states, and especially those that heavily depend on federal reimbursements to pay for transportation projects.

As most people know, the Congress has failed to pass a long-term federal highway bill.  As reported by AGC of America, this week the House, by a vote of 367 to 55, approved H.R. 5021, a $10.8 billion Highway Trust Fund patch which provides sufficient revenue to maintain current funding levels through May 2015.  The action now heads to the Senate where there is expected to be debate about limiting the extension until December 31, 2014 with the hope of forcing consideration of a long term transportation bill with sufficient revenue to support it following the mid-term elections in November.

Meanwhile, WSDOT Secretary Lynn Peterson released the following statement:

USDOT Secretary Anthony Foxx informed states on July 1 that if Congress fails to act by Aug. 1, 2014, the Federal Highway Administration will institute uniform cash management procedures to distribute the flow of federal dollars twice a month. So, what does this mean for WSDOT’s programs? It means that over the short term, the amount FHWA will reimburse WSDOT will be limited to a share of the available cash in the fund. Our share is based on our portion of the FFY 2014 federal-formula apportionment, 1.72 percent.

We’ve been good stewards of our resources and by using our strategic investment goals – managing to meet our priorities and critical needs, we can sustain the proportional payments of federal dollars under this plan for four to six months.

We remain hopeful that Congress will act in time to stave off more significant, long-term impacts. Look for more updates as their deadline approaches.

Lynn Peterson, Secretary of Transportation

Sedge of cranes return to roost in Seattle?

Tuesday, June 24th, 2014

That’s right, I said “sedge.”  That’s the name for a group of cranes (the bird kind)…you can look it up.

My AGC colleague Sean Lewis shot the video below from our offices on Lake Union.  He counts 18 construction cranes on the city skyline, a pretty high number for our informal “crane index”.  Back in the heyday of 2007, there were 22.  By 2010 there were, oh, zero.  But now we’re all the way back up to 18.  Our crane index is backed up by some recent, and actual, economic data: Construction employment in  Washington State grew 5.5% in the last year — one of the largest increases in  the nation, as reported by AGC of America.  Plus, the Census Bureau  recently announced that Seattle is the fastest growing big city in the  country.

It’s great to see this sedge; long may it roost in Washington State!

 

L&I has some ideas to keep you from falling

Monday, June 2nd, 2014

According to L&I, falls account for the highest number of deaths among construction workers nationally and more than half of all worker hospitalizations across all industries in Washington state.
L&I wants to reduce that and has teamed with OSHA to create Safety Stand-Down week — a voluntary event that encourages employers to talk with employees about fall hazards and hammer home the importance of fall prevention. The program runs this week.
“Preventable falls — whether from rooftops, ladders or slips and trips — cause many disabling injuries and a number of deaths in our state each year,” said Anne Soiza, assistant director of L&I’s division of occupational safety and health, in a release. “We hope that every employer in the state will set aside time during the Stand-Down to focus on fall prevention.”
To get the ball rolling, L&I has come up with a series of slightly humorous one-minute videos called Eye on Safety. They can be found at www.EyeOnSafety.info. Below is one on walkway obstruction.

Proposed rule expands Clean Water Act jurisdiction

Monday, March 31st, 2014

AGC of America reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed their new rule aimed at clarifying the definition of “waters of the U.S.” and which bodies of water fall under federal jurisdiction. This definition is critical to many of the Clean Water Act programs affecting how contractors perform their work, such as the Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits, Section 402 Stormwater programs, and Section 311 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plans.

At this point, the proposed rule appears substantially similar to a previously leaked version, a massive – and unnecessary – expansion in Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Ditches, ephemeral and intermittent streams, tributaries, and isolated waters located in a floodplain or riparian area (which have no defined limit in the rule) are all now potentially jurisdictional.

The rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register soon, with a 90-day comment period in effect after publication.

IMCO shows students construction in action

Monday, March 24th, 2014

imcoOur thanks to IMCO General Construction, Superintendent Joe Lupo and his outstanding crew for hosting a group of Bellingham High School students at Imco’s Lynden Wasterwater Treatment Plant expansion project today.

AGC’s Northern District provided lunch for the whole gang, and Joe had their attention every step of the way on his site tour. Thanks again, Joe!

State Senate considering public works funding bill

Thursday, February 20th, 2014

The Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA) is a mechanism to provide low interest loans to local governments to help them build major infrastructure projects that they would not otherwise be able to afford.

Between 1985 and 2013, the PWAA was used to make loans totaling $2.84 billion for approximately 1,975 local government public works projects. These include the acquisition, construction, repair, replacement or improvement of bridges, streets and roads; water systems; storm and sanitary sewage systems; and solid waste facilities, including recycling.

However, last year the Legislature redirected the Public Works Assistance Account’s funding streams away from capital projects and into the general budget, until 2019.  The unintended consequences of this action are now becoming clear:  Several local infrastructure construction projects have been put on hold because market interest rates for loans for these projects have added millions of dollars to the costs, making them unaffordable for many local governments.

The State House of Representatives recently passed a bill, SHB 2244, which would restore funding to the PWAA in 2015.  This bill passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 87-11. By making local infrastructure construction projects feasible, the bill helps spur private economic development which, in turn, boosts state funding for education and other needs.  In addition, this bill will create jobs. Employment in the construction industry in Washington State grew by only 0.2% in 2013, one of the slowest rates in the nation.  This bill will help the industry in its recovery.

Now, attention turns to the Senate.  With the legislative session set to conclude March 13, there isn’t much time for the Senate to act. Everyone is encouraged to contact their State Senators and urge them to support SHB 2244.

Blind Acceptance of Evidence of Insurance is Asking for Trouble

Monday, February 3rd, 2014

Last year, I wrote an article published in Engineering News Record entitled “Understanding Insurance: A ‘Must” for Every Construction Professional.” In that article, I discussed how my thinking about construction insurance issues has been forced to evolve from my days in the 1980s as a construction project engineer and project manager, up to an including my role today advising clients on construction issues. My theme was that contractor’s insurance is no longer a “one size fits all” item, and that construction professionals, in addition to understanding labor, materials, equipment and scheduling, have to now be passably fluent in insurance, too.

Illustrative of my point is Delean’s Tile & Marble v. American States Insurance, approved for publication last week by Division I of the Washington Supreme Court. In that case, a general contractor was engaged to perform repairs on a condo project after the original developer settled with the Homeowner’s Association over claims for defects in the original construction. The general, in turn, hired a subcontractor to perform some of the repair work, which it apparently did not do well. When the subcontractor refused to fix its allegedly flawed work, the general hired a replacement subcontractor and made a claim against the original sub under the terms of their subcontract that required the sub to indemnify the general. The dispute resulted in a lawsuit.

The insurer provided a defense to the subcontractor, and represented the sub throughout the proceedings, up to and including the time that the sub settled with the general for something north of $150,000. However, the insurer refused to pay the settlement amount, and began a declaratory action, seeking a ruling from the court that no coverage for the settlement amount was available, even though the general was an “additional insured” under the requirements of the subcontract.

The general also filed a claim with the sub’s comprehensive general liability insurance carrier, asserting that it has been named an “additional insured” under that policy pursuant to the requirements of the subcontract. Obviously, if unable to obtain indemnity for its damages from the original subcontractor, the general contractor was expecting the insurer to pick up the tab for the defects in the sub’s work. However, the insurer denied the claim, asserting that the multifamily exclusion in the sub’s policy precluded coverage.

The general had the defective work repaired at a total cost (including attorney’s fees) of more than $170,000, and sued the sub. Eventually, the general obtained a judgment against the sub (presumably under the indemnity provision of the subcontract) in that action. The sub was defended by its insurer under a reservation of rights in that action.

However, before the judgment was entered against the sub, the insurer began a suit of its own—a declaratory action asking the court to determine that there was no insurance coverage under its policy from which the general (or the homeowners) could recover. Each party filed a motion for summary judgment in the declaratory action, and the court ruled that the multi-family exclusion barred a recovery from the insurer for the damages associated with the sub’s work, and that the general was entitled to no defense against the homeowner’s actions against it., And, all because of the multi-family exclusion.

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the general’s attempts to parse the definitions in the policy upon which the insurer relied, repeatedly holding that those attempts “lacked merit.” Marching through the general’s assertions one by one, the Court of Appeals provided either definitions from the policy itself or common usage of the terms on which the general (unsuccessfully) relied to attempt to avoid the multi-family exclusion.

Gone are the days when receiving the Accord form “evidence of insurance” was enough to check off that requirement from a subcontractor. The enormous condominium litigation industry that has evolved over the past 15 or so years has prompted nearly every CGL carrier to exclude multi-family construction from its contractor policies. In fact, these exclusions are what has given rise to the “wrap up” and “Owner Controlled Insurance Plans” (OCIP) we see on nearly every condo project built over the last several years.

We now all expect that original condo or apartment construction will have some version of an OCIP these days. What’s interesting about Delean’s, however, is that it is not about the original construction of a condo, it’s about the second-tier repair construction to a condo. Yet, the same lessons with regard to the availability of multi-family insurance apply. Moreover, it’s highly possible that whichever sub repaired the Delean’s sub’s bad work had a similar exclusion in its policy, and the specter exists that the pattern of no coverage for defects might just continue.

Insurance literacy then involves more than just getting an Accord form in the mail, seeing that your company has been named as an “additional insured,” and filing that piece of paper. Literacy today requires not only an understanding that the insurance exists, but of what it consists, and perhaps more importantly, what is excluded from it. General contractors who work on any aspect of multi-family projects, including in particular the repairs being made after the first round of litigation, would do well to include a requirement in the insurance portion of their subcontracts that the sub must provide insurance for the type of project on which it’s working, either by providing a policy with no multi-family exclusion, or by paying for a rider to the base policy that covers all aspects of the project in question.

Low carbon fuel standard could negatively affect construction

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Washington State is considering the implementation of a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). While some of the effects of such a policy on the construction industry are unknown because it has yet to be tried anywhere, the things that are known about the policy are not good.

The push for a low-carbon fuel standard is coming from two directions: The Governor’s Climate Legislative Executive Workgroup (CLEW) will soon be making its recommendations for greenhouse gas-fighting policies the state could adopt, and the LCFS is one getting serious consideration. Plus, Governor Inslee signed a pact with other western states and British Columbia that promises to enact greenhouse gas policies regionally, including a LCFS. Neither of these actions actually creates new policies; they are more suggestions of what the state could do regarding greenhouse gases. In any event, these are strong indications of upcoming legislative battles.

The draft CLEW report talks about implementing a LCFS of a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the fuel mix over a 10 year time period in the State of Washington. It doesn’t prescribe what the fuel mix will be; just that it should have lower carbon intensity.

Keep in mind that for years refineries have been making fuel with 10% ethanol for many markets. But, even a 10% ethanol mix reduces the fuel’s carbon intensity by only 1%. Adding even more ethanol (and it would take a lot more!) has been shown to dissolve seals and gaskets in engines. Fuels with something else – such as agricultural waste products – has never been developed in the mixes needed to reach the 10% carbon intensity reduction.

So without a real-world test, it’s hard to say what the affect would be of a not-yet-developed fuel mixture on construction equipment and vehicles. But as AGC’s Oregon-Columbia Chapter pointed out in battling a similar proposal in Oregon, converting to higher biofuel content fuels would affect truck engine warranties. Currently, there are percentage limits on blended fuels, which when exceeded will void many manufacturers’ warranties. It is very likely that construction equipment and vehicles would have to at least be retrofitted to accommodate blended fuels, as was the case for recent clean air rules and their impact on older diesel-powered equipment.

Other concerns raised about LCFS proposals include:

  • Limited supply of biofuels in the US would likely trigger fuel shortages and spikes in fuel production costs, and industry analysts forecast that fuel costs could go up by as much as $1-$1.50 per gallon as a result.
  • Retro-fitting equipment to handle these biofuel blends is incredibly expensive. The majority of contractors would be faced with making changes they cannot afford, while only some contractors are able to make the necessary investments in biofuels/energy production technologies, onsite fueling depots, total fleet conversions and all of the costs associated with these capabilities.
  • California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program was ruled unconstitutional in a United States District Court based on the Interstate Commerce Clause.  The court battle continues.
  • This kind of program is not feasible at the state level- these policies should be a matter of discussion at the Federal level. In fact, there are already federal mandates in place for advanced biofuels technology through the Federal Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program.