January 2013 Archives

Even Offerors Eliminated Before the Competitive Range May Have Protest Standing


On January 14, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") held that an offeror had standing to challenge the exclusion of its proposal from a competition even prior to a competitive range, despite the offeror's submission of an incomplete proposal. In Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit clarified that a disappointed offeror that has been eliminated from a competition can show that it has standing as an "interested party."

To learn more about this, click here to read the client alert.

New CA Law Refines Law About Who is a "Contractor" to Bolster Consumer Protection

By , and

Assembly Bill 2237, which took effect January 1, 2013, confirms that anyone, including a consultant to an owner-builder, who provides or oversees bids for construction, arranges for subcontractor work and schedules, and/or has oversight for a home improvement project is, in fact, acting in the capacity of a contractor and must be state-licensed for any project that is more than $500 in combined labor and material costs. "Consultant" is defined as "a person, other than a public agency or an owner of privately owned real property to be improved, who meets any either of the following criteria as it relates to work performed pursuant to a home improvement contract as defined in [Business & Professions Code section] 7151.2: (A) Provides or oversees a bid for a construction project. (B) Arranges for and sets up work schedules for contractors and subcontractors and maintains oversight of a construction project." To read A.B. 2237, click here.

The CSLB sponsored the bill as "a valuable consumer protection measure." CSLB Registrar Steve Sands commented: "All too often, people who don't have a state contractor license call themselves construction consultants and encourage property owners to take on a home improvement project as the owner-builder. The so-called consultant collects a fee and many times leaves the homeowners with all of the project responsibility and liability."

The new law addresses to some extent California's Second District Appellate Court's decision in The Fifth Day, LLC v. Bolotin, 09 C.D.O.S. 4019 (March 30, 2009), clarifying the definition of "consultant." The Fifth Day court, in a case of first impression, considered whether an entity that provided construction management services to a private owner was required to be licensed under the California Contractor's State License Law, Business & Professions Code section 7026. In a 2-to-1 decision, the Fifth Day court concluded that the services contemplated under the agreement in question did not cause the construction management company to fall under section 7026's definition of "contractor." To read our Client Alert entitled California Appellate Court Confirms that Certain Construction Managers Need Not Be Licensed Contractors, click here.

For additional information about several other laws affecting consumers, contractors, and the construction industry take that took effect January 1, 2013 click here.

CA Employment Development Department Now Authorized to Share New Employee Information

By and

With the passage of Assembly Bill 1794, effective January 1, 2013, accurately and timely reporting new employees is now even more important. The new law authorizes the Employment Development Department (EDD), until January 1, 2019, to provide the specified new employee information to the Joint Enforcement Strike Force on the Underground Economy, the Contractors' State License Board (CSLB), and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).

Efficient information-sharing among state offices is expected to ensure that employers are accurately reporting their employee payroll to their insurance carriers for establishing their workers' compensation insurance premiums.

This new law specifically enables the EDD, the CSLB, and the SCIF to establish a memorandum of understanding to audit, investigate, and prosecute those who violate tax withholding requirements and commit premium insurance fraud. With the newly shared information, the CSLB is expected to take disciplinary action against contractors who fail to accurately report new employee information within 20 days of the established hire date, as required by California Unemployment Insurance Code section 1088.5(d). To read the CSLB's Press Release on A.B. 1794, click here, and to read A.B. 1794, click here.