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.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
