<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Local Government Law &#187; claims of unanticipated cost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valocalitylaw.com/tag/claims-of-unanticipated-cost/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valocalitylaw.com</link>
	<description>Blog on Virginia local government issues and legal concerns.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:49:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Timely Written Notice of Construction Claims Means Just That</title>
		<link>http://valocalitylaw.com/2009/08/17/timely-written-notice-of-construction-claim-means-just-that-2/</link>
		<comments>http://valocalitylaw.com/2009/08/17/timely-written-notice-of-construction-claim-means-just-that-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew McRoberts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Board of Supervisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims of unanticipated cost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice requirement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valocalitylaw.com/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals interprets language from Va Code &#167; 33.1-386, identical to language in the Virginia Public Procurement Act In their recent article, the Sands Anderson Marks &#38; Miller construction litigation team commented on the Virginia Court of Appeals case, Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, 54 Va. App. 240, 677 S.E.2d 633 (2009). Their [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Virginia Court of Appeals interprets language from Va Code &sect; 33.1-386, identical to language in the Virginia Public Procurement Act</strong></p>
<p>In their recent article, the Sands Anderson Marks &amp; Miller construction litigation team commented on the Virginia Court of Appeals case, <em>Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC</em>, 54 Va. App. 240, 677 S.E.2d 633 (2009). Their article can be <a title="Construction Team Alert" href="http://www.sandsanderson.com/news_events/articles_and_points_of_law/contractors_notice_cnst_08_09.html" target="_blank">found here</a>. (<a href="http://z.pe/j17">http://z.pe/j17</a>)</p>
<p><strong>The <em>AMEC Civil</em> Case</strong></p>
<p>In the case, the Virginia Court of Appeals was called upon to interpret the language of Va. Code Ann. &sect; 33.1-386(A) (2009) which requires that timely &ldquo;written notice&rdquo; of its &ldquo;intention to file&rdquo; a claim &ldquo;at the time of the occurrence or beginning of the work upon which the claim and subsequent action is based.&rdquo; The Court applied that language strictly, and held that the contractor had not met that requirement, despite actual verbal notice. <em>AMEC Civil, LLC</em>, at *18. </p>
<p>The Court of Appeals relied upon two important Virginia Procurement act cases for local governments &#8211; <em>Flory Small Business Development Center v. Commonwealth</em>, 261 Va. 230, 541 S.E.2d 915 (2001) and <em>Sabre Construction Corporation v. County of Fairfax</em>, 256 Va. 68, 501 S.E.2d 144 (1998) (&#8220;The Public Procurement Act constitutes a waiver of public bodies&#8217; sovereign immunity, is in derogation of the common law, and, therefore, must be strictly construed.&#8221;).</p>
<p><strong>Broader Application to Local Government Contracts</strong></p>
<p>While the statute in question, Virginia Code &sect; 33.1-386, only applies to construction of state highways, the holding is likely to have a broader application to other types of public contracts and is helpful to localities.</p>
<p>First, some localities are now constructing or improving state highways given the lack of state money. Some localities have even assumed the role of VDOT locally.</p>
<p>Second, local governments typically use contractual language which is very similar to the statutory language interpreted in the <em>AMEC Civil</em> case. Construction contracts frequently contain standard language requiring prompt written notice of claims.</p>
<p>Third and most importantly, the language of Virginia Code &sect; 33.1-386 is<strong> identical</strong> to language in the Virginia Public Procurement Act. Therefore, as noted above, the<em> AMEC Civil</em> court relied upon the case of <em>Flory Small Business Development Center v. Commonwealth</em>, 261 Va. 230, 541 S.E.2d 915 (2001), in which that same language was similarly interpreted: &ldquo;Contractual claims, whether for money or other relief, shall be submitted in writing no later than 60 days after final payment. However, written notice of the contractor&rsquo;s intention to file a claim shall be given at the time of the occurrence or beginning of the work upon which the claim is based.&rdquo; Virginia Code &sect; 2.2-4363(A) (formerly Virginia Code &sect; 11-69(A)). Subsection (C) of that section provides for nearly identical language to be included in every contract unless some other procedural for considering claims is agreed to by the public body.</p>
<p>Thus, the <em>AMEC Civil</em> case (and its affirmative reliance upon <em>Flory Small Business Development Center</em> and <em>Sabre Construction</em>) is a good case for local governments as well as those who do business with local governments to keep in mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://valocalitylaw.com/2009/08/17/timely-written-notice-of-construction-claim-means-just-that-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

