• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Blog / All Puffed Up… Proposals Can Bite Back

All Puffed Up… Proposals Can Bite Back

March 17, 2016 //  by Greg Cafouros

Greg-Cafouros-Web-BlogArchitects and Engineers benefit from a rule in construction known as The Economic Loss Doctrine, limiting a design professional’s exposure in construction claims. The players in a construction project dispute are required to follow the “chain of contracts” that the owner, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractors and design professionals signed before beginning their work.

In a recent case, however, Community College of Philadelphia v. Stantec Architecture & Engineering, a jury awarded the College $5.5 million for breach of contract and professional negligence. The College alleged that Stantec used unlicensed designers and engineers, fell behind in their proposed schedule of completion of contract documents and relied too heavily of the RFI process to callout conflicts in the contract documents. The net result was alleged to have resulted in delays and increased costs of more than 50% over the College’s budget.

What is unusual in this case is that the jury looked at the pre-contract construction schedule and proposal supplied by Stantec in their response to the College’s RFP as a basis for liability. Stantec’s proposal indicated that they would use “experienced professionals” and “senior level professionals”, when in fact interns from Drexel University were used as well as unlicensed architects. Less experienced employees were used particularly in the position of Project Architect. In-house MEP engineers were touted in the proposal to save costs, but in fact these services were contracted out.

Adding to the confusion was the use of multiple prime contractors for the work resulting in hundreds of disciplinary conflicts, deficiencies, errors and omissions.

The take away from all this is that the contents of a proposal may be relied upon by owners and could be considered part of a contract for the work. To avoid this, your contract must be very explicit that there are no other documents which pertain to your professional services other than your contract. In addition, work should not begin without a signed contract in place limiting the reliance of owner on the contents of a proposal. This led to Stantec’s problem. They worked for months and were paid without a signed contract in hand.

Puffing has its place in presenting one’s qualifications and expertise. But this puffing tends to accrete overtime, from one proposal to the next, gradually ramping up the hype and hyperbole to extreme levels. Care should be taken to carefully review proposals for promises that are over the top.

Category: Blog, Construction LawTag: Greg Cafouros

Previous Post: « Indiana Political Subdivisions Must Adopt New Policies by July 1, 2016
Next Post: Attorney Leverton Appointed to Woodruff Place Economic Improvement Board »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

RECENT POSTS

What Happens to Your Social Media Accounts After Your Death?

Estate planning has not always kept up with the pace of change …

7 Attorneys Selected as Super Lawyers 2023

We are thrilled to announce Super Lawyers selected seven KGR …

Noteworthy Education Caselaw Updates

Our Education & Public Policy Law attorneys give an update …

Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

Footer

Indianapolis Office

Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 692-9000
(317) 264-6832
Directions

Connect with us!

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Newsletter

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in