Webinar: Mexico's Infrastructure Opportunities 2013-2018

From a recent Export.gov email blast:

Webinar: Mexico’s Infrastructure Opportunities 2013-2018
Venue: Your Computer
Date/Time: August 22, 2013; 2:00 PM Eastern Time
Cost: $40 per company
Learn more: http://export.gov/mexico/tradeevents/eg_mx_058422.asp
Register: https://emenuapps.ita.doc.gov/ePublic/newWebinarRegistration.jsp?SmartCode=3Q63

The Government of Mexico will be releasing its Strategic National Infrastructure Program 2013-2018 shortly. Several prominent business analysts already identified the strongest contenders to benefit as prime contractors on each of the country’s priority sectors, namely transportation, construction, energy, oil & gas, ports, rail, engineering, new environmental technologies, and telecommunications. The six-year plan will result in approximately $200 billion dollars in government spending, which would double when matched by funds from the private sector. Business opportunities in the form of highways, passenger and cargo train lines, several expansion plans of cargo containers and a new cruise ship terminal, the development of a fiber optic network to interconnect with the national electricity grid, and a new airport in the center of the country are some of the proposals. Join our webinar on Thursday, August 22, 2013 to learn more about President Peña’s upcoming announcement. We will discuss how to finance infrastructure projects, the public tender process and best practices for prime contractors and sub-contractors with leaders experienced in developing successful partnerships. Get to know strategic projects from those who know how to do business in Mexico. The 2013-2018 programs will offer detailed information on priority projects designed to double Mexico's level of infrastructure investment.

Invited Guests: Dorothy Lutter, Minister Counselor for Commercial Affairs, U.S. Commercial Service, Adolfo Luviano (TBC), International Affairs Vice Director, Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT), Carlo F. Orsenigo, Country Manager, CH2M HILL. Host: Diego Gattesco Senior Trade Specialist & Trade Americas Team Leader, U.S. Department of Commerce. For more information contact: adrian.orta@trade.gov

Upcoming U.S. Commercial Service initiatives connecting to business opportunities around the world: http://export.gov/usoffices/index.asp

Contractor Licensing Law: The High Price of Being An Unlicensed Contractor

California courts strictly enforce the disgorgement provisions of the contractor licensing law. A new California case underscores this reality. In Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation v. Paul Bardos the California Court of Appeal upheld a trial court ruling which ordered an unlicensed contractor to return ("disgorge") over $750,000 back to the project owner.

In February 2007, Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation ("Palms"), a tribal corporation, undertook construction improvements to the Spotlight 29 Casino. Palms hired Paul Bardos as its construction manager. Palms also hired the Worth Group as its general contractor. Worth Group submitted a bid to Palms in excess of $1.7 million for a portion of the work. At the request of Palms, Bardos submitted his own bid for approximately $750,000 to perform the same work. Palms accepted Bardos' bid and requested that he perform the work under a different name to hide the fact that Palms was awarding the contract to Bardos, Palms' current construction manager. Bardos agreed and created Cadmus Construction Co. ("Cadmus") to perform the work. Cadmus completed its work in June 2007 and subsequently obtained its contractor's license in October 2007. Palms thereafter sued Cadmus to recover all monies it paid to Cadmus as an unlicensed contractor. Palms prevailed and Cadmus was ordered to return all monies it had received for the work.

On appeal, the court rejected Cadmus' argument that the contractor licensing laws did not apply since the work was performed on tribal land. The court also rejected Cadmus' equitable arguments, notwithstanding the fact that Palms told Cadmus it did not need to be licensed. The court held that equity cannot circumvent the licensing requirements. The Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the trial court, ordering Cadmus to return all monies paid to it by Palms – a disgorgement in excess of $750,000.

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation v. Paul Bardos is the most recent case to reinforce the serious consequences for failing to comply with California's contractor licensing laws. Given the outcome of this case, the price of being an unlicensed contractor in California does not appear to be getting any cheaper.

Aaron Flores, Esq., is an Associate Attorney with Hunt Ortmann. Republished with permission from Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc., a leader in California construction law and one of our many Industry Speaks™ consultants. If you have any questions about this bulletin or contractor license law, please contact him at flores@huntortmann.com.

Running a Project Management Business: Contracts, Invoicing, and Financial Benchmarking

Editor's Note: This is the second of six Industry Speaks™ installments reviewing sections of PSMJ's updated Ultimate Project Management Manual.

The Ultimate Project Management Manual provides a range of instructions for these business related topics for Project Managers (PMs).

The target audience for Chapter 3, The Contract Agreement, is specifically PMs who have primary contract writing and negotiation responsibilities. Some firms don’t delegate this authority to project managers. However, all PMs should be thoroughly informed about their firms’ contractual procedures and obligations in order to properly execute the work and manage risks.

This topic would benefit from a step-by-step approach to creating and negotiating contracts. “Some Basics About Contracts” didn’t provide these basics:
To read the full review, click here.

Stop, Look, and… READ! Don't Sign That Subcontract Just Yet

You've just been informed that your subcontract bid has been accepted on a public works project and your company will receive a subcontract agreement shortly.  When you receive the draft agreement, you look it over and confirm that the scope of work and exclusions are consistent with your bid.  As to the rest of the "boilerplate" clauses, you do a cursory review and assume that the terms and conditions are customary and consistent with other agreements that you have seen and reviewed in the past.  So you sign it.

This approach to executing subcontract agreements is risky, to say the least.  Not all subcontracts are the same and can vary significantly.  There are often material differences which can be found in clauses ranging from indemnification to attorney's fees provisions.  Subcontractors should closely review and, when warranted, negotiate the terms and conditions in subcontract agreements.

In one case, the failure to review the subcontract terms almost had the unintended consequence of changing the very core of a subcontractor's business from a non-union shop to a union shop.  In this example, the subcontract agreement contained the following provision:

"Subcontractor agrees that it is bound to and shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the Master Labor Agreement including wages, trust fund contributions, working rules, the grievance/arbitration procedure and any other mechanism for the resolution of dispute contained in the Master Labor Agreement, whether or not the work is performed for the contractor.  Subcontractor further agrees to bind all its subcontractors performing job site work of the type covered by the Master Labor Agreement referenced above and to become bound and comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Master Labor Agreement.  Subcontractor acknowledges that the [Unions] are the intended third party beneficiaries of this contractual provision and may enforce the provision directly against Subcontractor."

By signing the agreement, the general contractor and Union contended that the subcontractor was now a full signatory member of the Union for all projects, which of course would have changed the very essence of the company.  As a result of not thoroughly reviewing the subcontract agreement before signing it, even though such provisions may arguably be unenforceable, the subcontractor ended up spending resources fighting the Union's attempt to audit its payroll, assess dues, and make the subcontractor a signatory member simply because it signed the subcontract agreement containing the Union clause.

Don't let this happen to you.  Review your contracts carefully before you sign them or have a qualified attorney do it for you.

Richard Mah, Esq., Contributor to Industry Speaks. Republished with permission from Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc., a leader in California construction law and one of our many Industry Speaks consultants. If you have any questions about this bulletin or construction contracts, please contact him at mah@huntortmann.com.