Washington DC Green Building

This week it is my great pleasure to bring you an interview courtesy of Chris Birk and Chris Cheatham. The interview which is described below is truly a must listen.

After three years of wrangling, confusion over the nation's first landmark piece of Green Building legislation may be coming to a close.

Enacted in 2006, Washington D.C.'s Green Building Act ushered in a new era of environmentally conscious construction. The law, which takes full effect in 2012, features a host of mandatory energy efficiencies for new construction projects. But the act's language has sparked controversy within the surety industry, which is responsible for bonding construction jobs and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are protected.

The issue has been the idea of a "green" performance bond.

To learn more about the situation in Washington and what it might mean for green building nationwide, the Surety Bonds Education Center recently spoke with Chris Cheatham, a Washington, D.C., construction attorney and an expert in the green building issues facing the surety industry. His blog, Green Building Law Update, has become a hub for information and insight into the future of green building in the nation's capital and beyond.

Chris has closely followed the Green Building Act and the controversy surrounding the surety requirements. You can listen to the full interview here.

Guest Post by Mark Rabkin: Green Building and the Surety

It is my honor this week to have Mark Rabkin of Althans Insurance Agency present a guest post dealing with green building and the surety. The issues surrounding green building and the various bonding and insurance issues remain an enigma to many of us but Mark definitely has his finger on the pulse of the issue and is an invaluable resource for anyone involved in the construction industry. Mark is very active on Twitter where he can be contacted @MeRabkin.

 

When a large, publicly funded construction project is sent out to bid, each contractor that is vying for a piece of the pie must submit a bid and performance bond in conjunction with their application. The bid and performance bond is underwritten by a surety company and provides a financial guarantee to the owner of the project that the contractor will comply with the terms of the construction contract. Should a contractor fail to perform, the surety company will either pay the current contractor to complete the project or hire another contractor to either fix the errors caused by the first or complete the job if the original contractor becomes insolvent. The surety company will then pursue the original contractor to collect on the defaulted amount. 

As indicated above, a surety bond is meant to guarantee the performance of a contractor as per the construction contract. The surety underwriters evaluate a “risk” based on their financial position, overall industry expertise including managerial experience and familiarity with the construction methods upon which they are bidding. It is important to note that the most critical component of a final bond is the actual contract that is entered into between the various parties involved. Should the contract contain language that is onerous to either party, a surety will either refuse to bond the contract or seek to have that specific language excluded or stricken from the contract. For example, extended warranty periods or usurious liquidated damages clauses are significant red flags to surety underwriters and legal departments.

Building projects that are registered for certification by an independent third party such as the US Green Building Council are rapidly growing in number. Many federal, state and municipal entities now either require or encourage new construction, major renovation or leased space to demonstrate some level of environmental stewardship throughout the construction process or energy efficiency within the subsequent operation of the facility. There has been much debate within risk management circles regarding the possibility that a project could fail to either achieve certification or attain a specified level of achievement. These situations could result in lost revenue opportunities for the loss of tenants, lost tax incentives, utility expenses higher than promised or any other failure to achieve an expected benefit of the proposed project. To protect themselves, project owners will look to transfer the risk to the design team or construction contractors and subcontractors. It should be noted that most if not all sureties will refuse to bond a contract that contains language that guarantees certification by a third party entity such as the US GBC or seeks to guarantee a specific level of energy efficiency.

Traditional general liability insurance defends and protects contractors for bodily injuries or property damage caused by the insured party’s negligence. It does not provide for defense or indemnification for claims due to breach of contract. Should a third party claim financial injury due to the negligence of a contractor, professional liability coverage (also called errors and omissions) could respond. This coverage is available in the market for construction companies and is increasingly necessary as more contractors are obtaining accreditation as “specialists” upon successfully earning their LEED-AP designations. 

Mark E. Rabkin is a triple bottom line risk manager for Althans Insurance Agency in Cleveland, Ohio. He counsels clients on the risks faced everyday that impact his client’s financial, social and environmental exposures.