Construction In Brief
A quarterly publication brought to you by
12
Summer 20
Exercise Caution When
Submitting Bids Online
In This Issue:
Bidder Beware
pg. 3
By Joseph A. Hackenbracht and Wendy R. Bennett
Increasingly, public bidding requirements include provisions mandating that
bidders submit their bids electronically to aid in the effective processing and
analysis of those bids. Examples include website bidding portals such as
PennBid.net used by many Pennsylvania municipalities and public school
districts, the Electronics Contract Management System (“ECMS”) used by the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”), and Bid Express
used by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (“NJDOT”). There is
also bidding software such as Expedite used by the Delaware Department
of Transportation (“DelDOT”). In the federal arena, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, at 48 CFR 4.502, provides that the “Federal Government shall use
electronic commerce whenever practicable or cost-effective.”
However, as with any computer-based program or website, technical problems
can arise during the electronic bidding process. Under Pennsylvania law,
instructions to bidders that are identified as mandatory must be strictly followed
for the bid to be valid. Otherwise, a non-conforming bid is subject to mandatory
rejection. These strict bidding requirements can pose a problem in the context of
electronic bidding, where issues with electronic bid irregularities easily can occur
without any fault or knowledge of the bidding contractor. In such cases, questions
arise as to whether a bid is still valid even if a glitch occurs when submitting an
online bid.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court case of Glasgow, Inc. v. Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation highlights this very issue. In Glasgow, a
contractor’s bid for a PennDOT road reconstruction project was submitted via the
ECMS. The bidding instructions stated that “[w]hen . . . required documentation
is not provided by the apparent low bidder within the time specified, the bid
will be rejected.” After bids were opened, PennDOT informed the contractor
via e-mail that it was the apparent low bidder and instructed the contractor to
submit certain required documents relating to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(“DBE”) participation by a certain time via the ECMS. Unfortunately, although
the contractor uploaded all of the required documents identifying its DBE
subcontractors on the website (and the DBE subcontractors acknowledged their
selection via the website), the contractor failed to press the “submit” button that
officially submitted the information to PennDOT. Accordingly, PennDOT rejected
the bid because the information had not been submitted by the required time and
the bid was awarded to the next lowest responsible bidder. The apparent lowest
bidding contractor protested PennDOT’s rejection of its bid.
Continued on page 7…
Employees Injured On The
Job In New Jersey — Are You
Sure You Are Covered?
pg. 4
Securing Federal Set-Aside
Contract Work Through
Joint-Venture or Teaming
Agreements
pg. 5
Q&A with Evan A. Blaker
pg. 6
A Brief Note
New Law Update
There are many exciting things happening here
at Cohen Seglias that we are happy to share
with you in this issue. Most notably, we have
welcomed Tony L. Byler and Evan A. Blaker to
the Firm. Please read our What’s New section
below to learn a bit more about the expertise
they both bring to construction and commercial
litigation law, as well as a brief Q&A with
Evan on page 6. As always, feel free
to reach out to us or any of our
attorneys with questions.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently limited
application of the prevailing wage law to multi-phase
construction projects involving a mix of private and public
funding. In 500 James Hance Court v. Pennsylvania Prevailing
Wage Appeal Board, the project was bifurcated into two
phases, with private funding for the “shell” phase and public
funding for the interior “fit out” of the building. The Prevailing
Wage Appeals Board held that prevailing wages were required
for both phases of construction. The Commonwealth Court
later reversed the Board’s decision, holding that splitting the
project into “shell” and “fit out” phases was not an unlawful
evasion of prevailing wage rates. The Supreme Court agreed
and ruled that where a bifurcated construction project is
financed by private and public funding, and at least one phase
is financed entirely by private funds, prevailing wages need
only be paid on those phases that receive public funding.
Ashling A. Ehrhardt, Esq.
Co-Editor-in-Chief
Kathleen J. Seligman, Esq.
Co-Editor-in-Chief
Recent Victory
What’s New
By Kerstin Isaacs
New Faces
Cohen Seglias is pleased to announce that Byler & Blaker LLC
has joined the Firm. Tony L. Byler and Evan A. Blaker bring
over 36 combined years of experience in construction, labor &
employment, and commercial litigation.
Tony, the managing partner of Byler & Blaker, has joined
the Firm as a Partner in the Construction Group. As a trial
lawyer, Tony has handled major construction disputes for
both plaintiffs and defendants involving educational facilities,
hotels, bridges, high-rise residential buildings, prisons, waste
water treatment plants, parking garages, docks, assisted living
facilities, and shopping centers.
Evan has joined the Firm as a Partner
in the Commercial Litigation Group. He
focuses his practice on a wide range of
practice areas, including employment,
personal injury, construction, and
commercial litigation/business disputes,
including breach of fiduciary duty claims and
commercial collections, with a concentration
on contractor supply houses.
Roy Cohen, John Greenhall, Tony Byler, Lisa Wampler, and Dan
Fierstein were successful in negotiating a favorable settlement
for an electrical contractor client (“Client”). The Client
contracted with a solar energy provider (“System Owner”) for
the design and construction of eighteen solar energy systems
to provide electricity for various public schools in four school
districts. Each of the school districts entered into long-term
agreements with the System Owner to purchase energy from
the System Owner. As most of the projects approached final
completion, the System Owner withheld the Client’s contract
balances totaling approximately $9 million due to alleged time
of performance issues. The Client maintained that any of the
alleged issues were excusable and that the contract balances
were being unjustifiably withheld because the alleged timing
issues were either outside of the Client’s control or directly
caused by the System Owner’s conduct or failure to act.
The System Owner claimed it was entitled to offset the
Client’s entire contract balance based on the time of
performance issues. On top of this offset, the System Owner
claimed it was entitled to an additional $4.3 million in other
damages. The parties entered into arbitration before the
American Arbitration Association and, after an intensive two
month period during which thousands
of documents were exchanged
and reviewed, along with expert
reports and arbitration statements,
Cohen Seglias assisted the Client in
negotiating a settlement agreement
that was highly favorable for the Client. Roy Cohen can be reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected].
Kerstin is the Firm’s Marketing Director.
She can be reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected].
2
cohenseglias.com
Bidder Beware:
Recent Pennsylvania Case Provides
Cautionary Reminder of the Perils of Failing
to Conform to Public Bid Specifications
By Edward Seglias and Kathleen M. Morley
In a time when competition among bidders is already fierce,
it is particularly important that public bids are responsive and
compliant with the specifications. Failure to do so, even if it is
a minor error, can result in a bidder’s disqualification. A recent
Pennsylvania appellate court decision serves as a cautionary
reminder of the perils of a bidder’s failure to conform precisely to
bid specifications.
In Dragani v. Borough of Ambler, a taxpayer (“Taxpayer”)
challenged a municipality’s award of a waste services and
recycling contract. The Taxpayer argued that the award should
be revoked based on alleged defects in the bid submitted by the
apparent low bidder (“Bidder”). The bid specifications required
that each bidder accompany its bid with a consent of surety
form from a surety with an underwriting authority of at least $20
million.
In challenging the award, the Taxpayer argued that the Bidder
should be disqualified because it submitted a consent of
surety form from a surety with only $16 million in underwriting
authority, as opposed to the required $20 million. The Bidder
argued that this was a curable, nonmaterial defect that was
waivable by the municipality. Agreeing with the Bidder, the trial
court held that the defect in the bid was not material and that the
municipality had reserved the right to waive defects.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed
the trial court’s decision and held that the Bidder should have
been disqualified because the defect involving the consent
of surety form was material. The court found that, although
the municipality had reserved the right to waive bid defects,
the municipality did not have discretion to waive a mandatory
requirement. Because bidders were required to submit a
consent of surety form in accordance with the specifications at
the time of the bid, the court ruled that the Bidder’s failure to
submit a consent of surety form from a surety with $20 million
in underwriting authority was a legally disqualifying error.
In support of its decision, the court cited the general rule
that requirements in bid documents are mandatory and must
be strictly followed for a bid to be valid and responsive. This
general rule, the court noted, is based on the underlying public
policy of avoiding favoritism, fraud, and corruption in the award
of public contracts. The court acknowledged the recognized
exception to the general rule: municipalities may waive
non-material, non-statutory requirements in circumstances
where such waiver would not deprive assurance of the proper
performance of the contract or adversely affect competitive
bidding. However, the court identified a caveat to this exception
in circumstances where the defect involves a requirement that
the bid specifications treat as non-waivable (i.e., where the
specifications state that a bid will be rejected if a bidder fails to
comply with the requirement).
While there are situations where a public entity may waive
defects in a bid, the Dragani case serves as an important
reminder that these situations are limited and that a bidder
must exercise care in the preparation of public bids. Notably, the
decision re-affirms that bids that fail to conform to specifications
may, and frequently must, be rejected, even where the public
entity has expressly reserved its right to waive bid deficiencies.
When bidding on public jobs, it is crucial that contractors
know and understand the specifications and requirements for
bidding. Contractors bidding on public jobs must be mindful
of the stringent conformity requirements and the high cost of
seemingly inconsequential mistakes or omissions. By ensuring
compliance with all bid specifications and requirements,
contractors can avoid the unfortunate situation of expending
valuable time and resources in the preparation of a bid only to
have it disqualified due to a technical oversight.
Ed is a Partner with the Firm and
Kathleen is an Associate, both practicing
in the Construction Group. They can be
reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected] or
[email protected].
cohenseglias.com
3
Employees Injured
On The Job In
New Jersey –
compensation system when his injury was caused by his
employer’s “intentional wrong.”
By Jonathan A. Cass
During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, Laidlow established
that a guard on the machine had been intentionally disabled by
the employer. For more than twelve years, Laidlow repeatedly
asked his supervisor to restore the guard because it was unsafe
to operate the machine without it. However, Laidlow’s requests
were ignored. The employer admitted that the guard had been
removed for “speed and convenience,” and an engineer retained
by Laidlow certified that the employer knew there was a “virtual
certainty of injury” to Laidlow “arising from the operation of the
mill without a guard.”
The so-called “intentional wrong” exception was recently
interpreted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Laidlow
v. Hariton Machinery Company, Inc. In Laidlow, the plaintiffemployee sustained a hand injury when his gloved hand was
pulled into a mill machine that he was operating. Laidlow brought
an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey against his
employer (and his supervisor) arguing that his injury had been
caused by his employer’s “intentional wrong.”
Are You Sure You Are Covered?
ABC, a general contractor, is working on a multi-story building in
New Jersey. While constructing the building, Bob, one of ABC’s
employees, sustains serious brain damage when he is struck
in the head by construction debris falling from an upper floor of
the building. It turns out that the debris had been thrown from
the building by another ABC employee who was trying to hit a
dumpster located on the ground near where Bob was walking.
So long as ABC has workers’ compensation insurance, ABC is
going to have insurance coverage for any claims that Bob brings
against ABC, right? Surprisingly, the answer can be no if Bob
decides to bring an action against ABC outside of the workers’
compensation system, something that is happening more
frequently due to recent developments in New Jersey law.
To understand this unfortunate state of affairs, it is necessary to
understand the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A.
34:15-1 et seq. (“Act”). Under the workers’ compensation
system, an employee injured (or killed) on the job is entitled to
have the medical care necessary to treat his injuries paid for,
and to receive payment of a percentage of his gross weekly
wages during the period of time he is unable to work. Although
the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits even if the
accident was his fault, he is not entitled to receive compensation
for the pain and suffering associated with his injury.
An employer insures itself from workers’ compensation claims
by purchasing a workers’ compensation and employers liability
insurance policy (“WC policy”). The WC policy will pay for the
legal costs and expenses associated with defending a workers’
compensation claim, and any benefits awarded to the injured
employee. It also includes employers liability coverage (referred
to as “Part Two” coverage), which is intended to provide
coverage for claims outside of the workers’ compensation
system – such as a claim brought by an employee alleging that
his injury was caused by the employer’s negligence or failure to
provide a safe workplace.
The benefits provided under the Act are intended to be the
injured employee’s exclusive remedy against both the employer
and any co-employees who were responsible for his injuries.
This means that an employee cannot file a lawsuit against the
employer and co-employee who caused the accident asserting
common-law claims (such as a tort-based claim for negligence)
outside of the workers’ compensation system. However, the
Act does provide a single exception that permits the employee
to bring an action against his employer outside of the workers’
4
In response to the lawsuit, the employer sought to dismiss
the case on the grounds that Laidlow’s injuries had not been
caused by the employer’s “intentional wrong.” The Court held it is
necessary to perform a two-part analysis to determine whether
an employer has committed an “intentional wrong.” The first step
is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a jury to
conclude that the “employer acted with knowledge that it was
substantially certain that a worker would suffer an injury.” If the
answer is in the affirmative, then the court must take the second
step to determine whether the facts of the accident “constitute
a simple fact of industrial life or are outside the purview of the
condition the Legislature could have intended to immunize under
the Workers’ Compensation bar.”
The Laidlow decision essentially removed the requirement that
the employee prove that his injury resulted from an intentional
act of the employer. As a result, plaintiff’s attorneys have filed
many more lawsuits outside of the workers’ compensation
system on behalf of employees who had been injured or killed on
the job.
Employers who were sued sought coverage under the
employers liability section of their WC policy. The employers
liability coverage has an exclusion for “bodily injury intentionally
caused or aggravated” by the employer. This exclusion had been
traditionally used by insurance companies to deny insurance
coverage for lawsuits brought by employees alleging that their
employer had committed an “intentional wrong.” However, in
a victory for employers, a subsequent decision by the New
Jersey Supreme Court held that the “intentionally caused or
aggravated” exclusion did not apply to the new “substantially
certain” standard established by Laidlow, thereby providing
coverage for such claims under the employers liability coverage
portion of the WC policy.
In response to this development, the New Jersey Compensation
Rating and Inspection Bureau, the entity that regulates workers’
cohenseglias.com
compensation insurance in New Jersey, issued a new policy
endorsement titled “New Jersey Part Two Employers Liability
Endorsement” (“New Endorsement”). The New Endorsement
excludes coverage for lawsuits brought by employees under the
“substantial likelihood” standard.
Laidlow and the Bureau’s response created the worst of both
worlds for New Jersey employers. It increased the likelihood
that a severely injured employee will attempt to circumvent the
exclusive remedy provision of the Act by suing his employer
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, while at the same time
triggering the creation of the New Endorsement that eliminated
the insurance coverage needed for those lawsuits.
What should employers working in New Jersey do to protect
themselves? First, employers should advise their insurance
brokers and agents of this issue and determine whether their
workers compensation carriers will agree to issue a policy
without the New Endorsement. If the insurance carrier is willing
to do so, there will likely be an increased premium charge
since the carrier is assuming a greater potential risk. Second,
employers should emphasize work-place safety and ensure that
employees are not put in a position of having to work under
dangerous conditions where injury is “substantially certain.” In
the event that you find yourself facing such a situation, contact
an attorney for the purpose of trying to obtain coverage for
such a lawsuit.
Jonathan is a Partner with the Firm and practices
in the Commercial Litigation, Insurance
Coverage & Risk Management Groups. He
can be reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected].
Securing Federal
Set-Aside Contract
Work Through
Joint-Venture or
Teaming Agreements
By Edward T. DeLisle and Maria L. Panichelli
On March 7, 2012, the Government Efficiency Through Small
Business Contracting Act (H.R. 3850 – 112th Congress
(2012)) cleared the House of Representatives’ Small Business
Committee. The bill, designed to increase the number of federal
contract opportunities for small businesses, would raise the
government’s goal for prime procurement contracts awarded to
small business concerns from 23% to 25% of all prime contracts
per fiscal year. Similarly, the bill seeks to raise the government’s
goal for small-business subcontracting from 35.9% to 40% of all
applicable contracts. This bill is indicative of a growing trend in
federal contracting: the continual increase in the amount of setaside contracts for small businesses.
Contrary to what many contractors believe, however, an
increase in the percentage of set-aside contracts for small
businesses does not necessarily eliminate large businesses
from participating in the performance of those contracts. Large
businesses can compete for virtually any small business setaside contract, if they properly “team” with small businesses.
Moreover, under the right circumstances, small businesses can
joint-venture with each other on set-aside contracts, even if one
or more of those small businesses alone would not otherwise
qualify to compete for that contract.
Eligible small business set-aside participants can also benefit
from joint-ventures or teaming agreements. These arrangements
allow small businesses to pool their resources to compete for
larger federal projects. Joint-venturing and teaming are good
ways for relatively inexperienced contractors to break into the
federal contracting arena, an area in which experience and past
performance can prove critical to securing a contract. By teaming
with a more experienced, larger contractor, a small company can
acquire the experience needed to secure future federal contracts
on its own.
In short, joint-venturing and teaming are useful tools for all
contractors and the possibility for forming such arrangements
should be explored, albeit with the understanding that there are
limitations. For example, under normal circumstances, only an
8(a) business – a business that is defined as a “small” business
and is also owned and operated by a member of a disadvantaged
socio-economic group – can bid for an 8(a) “set-aside” contract.
cohenseglias.com
5
Q&A with Evan A. Blaker
Partner Evan A. Blaker recently joined Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall
& Furman PC as part of the Commercial Litigation Group. We sat
down with him to discuss his background and his thoughts on the
state of the construction industry.
Q: W
hat is your background?
A: I have been practicing law as a trial litigator for more than
20 years. Most recently, over the past 10 years or so, I have
concentrated my practice in construction-related claims and
disputes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with a particular
emphasis in representing contractor supply houses. This
represented somewhat of a change in my practice focus
coinciding with my teaming up with a former associate, Tony
Byler. Tony and I had been at the same firm for several years and
eventually left and went in separate directions. During that time,
Tony developed a construction law practice that grew to the point
where he needed help and called me and asked me to join him in
what would become Byler & Blaker.
Q: W
hat is your practice philosophy?
A: To treat all of my clients as if they were members of my family.
And the fact is that I have developed strong friendships with
virtually all of my clients. Counseling folks that you consider your
friends becomes easy as there is a deeply engrained mutual
respect and understanding of the things that matter most in any
given scenario. And while I am a proponent of litigation being a
last resort, when it does become time to do battle, preparation is
key because for me and my competitive nature, losing is simply
not an option.
Q: W
hat strengths do you bring to Cohen Seglias?
A: I have been actively engaged in litigation practice for over 20
years. I know the rules of procedure in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, both Federal and State Courts, like the back of my hand
and can effectively utilize them to benefit my clients. There is no
substitute for experience, which I bring to the firm.
Q: W
hat are you looking forward to with the move to Cohen Seglias’
Commercial Litigation Group?
A: The move to CSPG&F is exciting on several different fronts. First,
I am eager to use the wider CSPG&F platform to provide my
existing clients with expertise in areas in which
I don’t practice, like transactional work and
estate planning. I am also eager to provide
my expertise to the Firm’s clients.
Evan can be reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected].
constructionlawsignal.com
fedconblog.com
6
To determine whether a contractor qualifies as “small,”
the contractor must examine the North American Industry
Classification System Code associated with the contract. This
number is set forth in the solicitation itself. The contractor must
then reference the “size standard” associated with that code,
as found in the SBA’s Table of Small Business Size Standards.
For the most part, with respect to general contracting work,
a contractor will be considered “small” if it has an average of
$33.5 million in annual receipts over three years. In specialty
trade contracting, anything below $14 million in annual receipts
over three years is considered “small.”
Assuming that the proposed joint-venture complies with
the above, it must nonetheless satisfy certain additional
requirements in order to obtain SBA approval: (1) the 8(a)
company must own at least 51% of the joint-venture; (2) the 8(a)
company must be the managing partner of the joint-venture; (3)
a special bank account must be set up for the joint-venture; and
(4) profits must be commensurate with the work performed by
each member of the joint-venture. Most importantly, the 8(a)
participant to the joint-venture must perform at least 40% of the
work performed by the joint-venture, which is itself required to
perform between 15% (general contracting) or 25% (specialty
contracting) of the total contract amount. To ensure SBA approval
of a joint-venture on an 8(a) set-aside (which must be done prior
to the award of the 8(a) contract), the work breakdown should be
set forth in the joint-venture agreement itself, and in sufficient
detail so as to allow the SBA to determine whether the above
work-percentage requirements will be met.
The other option, if a joint-venture is not possible, is for parties
to enter into a “teaming arrangement.” A teaming agreement is
a promise by a prospective prime contractor (usually the small or
small, disadvantaged company) to another party (usually a large
business), to negotiate a subcontract in the event of an award.
Teaming agreements must be disclosed at the time of bid or
submission of a proposal. Under a teaming arrangement, the
subcontracting partner can perform up to 85% percent of the
contract price (exclusive of materials) in a general construction
contract, and up to 75% of the contract price in a specialty
trade contract.
While keeping these limitations in mind, contractors
should explore the various joint-venture or
teaming arrangements available to them.
These special arrangements open up new
contracting opportunities, and are a great tool
for expanding and diversifying business.
Follow Us...
Be sure to visit our two constructionrelated blogs for insights and information
on current and emerging developments
affecting the construction industry and
federal construction contractors.
As part of a joint-venture, however, a non-8(a) company may bid
for the contract. This is permissible only when at least one party
to the joint-venture has been classified as an 8(a) business, and
the non-8(a) company involved in the joint-venture also is “small”
by the U.S. Small Business Adminstration’s (“SBA”) standards.
Use your smart phone to
visit our homepage.
Get the free app for your
phone at http://gettag.mobi
Ed is a Partner and Maria is an
Associate, both practicing in the
Federal Construction Contracting
Group. They can be reached at
(215) 564-1700 or
[email protected] or
[email protected].
cohenseglias.com
Contributors:
Submitting Bids
Online continued...
Wendy R. Bennett, Esq.
Evan A. Blaker, Esq.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld PennDOT’s
rejection of the bid and found that until the contractor hit the
submit button, no information had been provided. In fact, the
court likened the situation to that of having to “click on a submit
button” when concluding an internet purchase. The Court relied
upon PennDOT’s argument that until officially submitted, the
contractor’s documents were not readily accessible and that
the contractor retained “a great deal of flexibility regarding the
use of particular subcontractors.” In addition, the Court noted
that the contractor had no responsibility to commit to the
information it provided “until it actually clicked on the submit
button.” Ultimately, the court held that the contractor’s failure to
submit DBE subcontractor information via PennDOT’s internet
bidding website was a material defect warranting rejection of the
contractor’s bid and award to the next lowest bidder.
Similar issues have been addressed by federal courts in protests
addressing electronic commerce and submissions by e-mail. In
Watterson Construction Co. v. United States, the Court of Federal
Claims considered a case involving a negotiated procurement
where the government rejected an e-mail proposal as untimely.
There, the government’s e-mail server received plaintiff’s
revised proposal at least a half-hour before the deadline but the
proposal was not delivered to the contracting officer’s “inbox”
until four minutes after the deadline. Relying on the federal
regulations and court precedent from before the “electronic
age,” the Court of Federal Claims held that the proposal received
by the contracting officer after the solicitation deadline may be
accepted if “[t]here is acceptable evidence to establish that
it was received at the Government installation designated for
receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior
to the time set for receipt of offers” and would not unduly delay
the acquisition. In reaching this decision, the Court analogized
electronic commerce requirements with traditional procurement
requirements and found that the plaintiff’s proposal was not late
and a contractor should not be responsible for the risk of late
delivery after relinquishing control of an e-mail bid that reached
the government office in time. However, because the contract
had already been awarded to another bidder, the plaintiff could
not be awarded the contract, but could only recover its bid
preparation costs.
The Glasgow decision serves as a stark warning to contractors:
be careful when submitting bids electronically. Your bid will only
be considered valid if you follow every online direction and satisfy
each bid package requirement. In federal procurements, the
Watterson decision demonstrates that when the problem is in
the government’s system, the government and not the contractor
is responsible, just as in the days of snail mail. Similar results
should prevail in state and local electronic bidding environments.
Contractors, both federal and local, when faced with
procurements that use electronic commerce can best protect
themselves by taking the following precautions when submitting
bids electronically:
Jonathan A. Cass, Esq.
Edward T. DeLisle, Esq.
Joseph A. Hackenbracht, Esq.
Kerstin Isaacs, Marketing Director
Kathleen M. Morley, Esq.
Maria L. Panichelli, Esq.
Edward Seglias, Esq.
Co-Editor-in-Chief: Ashling A. Ehrhardt, Esq.
Co-Editor-in-Chief: Kathleen J. Seligman, Esq.
Asst. Editor: Christopher P. Soper, Esq.
Design: Diccicco Battista Communications
(a) read and re-read the entire bid package and instructions
to bidders;
(b) provide all required documents and information solicited
in the bid instructions and on the bidding website;
(c) follow all directions relating to use of the website
so that your bid is not only complete but also correctly
uploaded or submitted to the website and public entity;
(d) prepare for the submission of your bid well in advance
of the deadline to avoid electronic errors and keep accurate
and detailed records of your online bid submissions;
(e) take advantage of bid submission training seminars
provided by many third-party electronic-bidding website
providers so you can become more comfortable with the
bidding website systems in advance of the bid
submission date; and
(f) transmit bids in PDF format and “scrub” all meta-data
associated with e-mails and files before transmitting.
By following these guidelines, you can minimize
the risk of having your bid rejected or having to
file costly bid protests. If you have questions
regarding bid requirements, contact an
attorney prior to submitting a bid.
Joe is a Partner with the Firm and
practices in the Federal Construction
Contracting Group. Wendy is an
Associate and practices in the
Construction Group. They can be
reached at (215) 564-1700 or
[email protected]
or [email protected].
cohenseglias.com
77
pg. 1
Exercise Caution
When Submitting
Bids Online
pg. 3
Bidder Beware
pg. 4
Employees Injured
On The Job In
New Jersey — Are
You Sure You Are
Covered?
pg. 5
Securing Federal
Q&A with
Set-Aside Contract Evan A. Blaker
Work Through
pg. 6
Joint-Venture
or Teaming
Agreements
Summer 2012
Construction In Brief
A quarterly publication brought to you by
Postage
Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC has deep roots in the Mid-Atlantic
region and a long-standing reputation for putting the interests and needs of our
clients first. The Firm advises and counsels businesses and individuals in a broad
range of legal services.
United Plaza, 19th Floor • 30 S. 17th Street • Philadelphia, PA 19103
cohenseglias.com • 215.564.1700
Pennsylvania • New Jersey • Maryland • West Virginia
©2012 Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. All rights reserved.
Construction in Brief is protected by U.S. and International copyright laws
and treaties. Use of material contained herein without express written
consent of the Firm is prohibited by law. Material contained within this
Newsletter is informational and promotional in nature, and not intended to be
legal advice. Readers are advised to seek legal consultation regarding
circumstances affecting their businesses.