I’d bet that all of your construction subcontracts contain some language that tries to obligate subcontractors to the prime contractor to the same extent that the prime contractor is obligated to the owner. In other words, if the prime owes certain duties to the owner, then the subcontractor owes those same duties to the prime. Sounds simple, but does it work? Is that enough to make all provisions of the prime contract part of the subcontract?
Typically, simply stating the subcontractor is bound to the prime to the same extent the prime is bound to the owner is insufficient to obligate the subcontractor to duties beyond those that are directly related to the subcontractor’s scope of work. For example, changes in the work are directly related to scope of work. So, changes clauses and related notice provisions in a prime contract would likely be incorporated into a subcontract under such a broad statement.
However, prime contract provisions not directly related to scope of work, such as a disputes clause, would not be incorporated into a subcontract under such a broad statement.
If you want to bind the subcontractor to the prime in every way the same as the prime is bound to the owner, then the incorporation clause of the subcontract should be:
- Specific (listing scope of work and the disputes provision(s)); and
- Repeated (in addition to having a typical incorporation clause, repeat in each provision of the subcontract where you want to incorporate that portion of the prime contract).
Use this diagram for this case.
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]
Roads & Bridges | Maximizing Damage Recovery
MAXIMIZING DAMAGE RECOVERY
Tracking Costs, Avoiding Duplication in Liquidated and Actual Damage Claims
A County and Contractor contracted for construction of a road and […]
Roads & Bridges | Roadwork, Delays and Disputes
ROADWORK, DELAYS, AND DISPUTES
The Subcontract Case In Pecos County, Texas
“Road construction is ubiquitous in our society. . . .” C&C Road […]
Roads & Bridges | Understanding Sovereign Immunity
UNDERSTANDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY| Public Contracts and Lessons from Recent Texas Cases
Generally, governmental entities are immune from lawsuits. One exception is contractual. If […]
Roads & Bridges | Indiana Court Upholds Broad ND4D Clause
INDIANA COURT UPHOLDS BROAD ND4D CLAUSE | Ruling Precludes Subcontractor Claims for Delay and Acceleration Damages
This is the story of an Indiana […]
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]
