New Mississippi Lien Law, SB 2622-A Summary of the Vast Changes

The Legislature has completely rewritten the Mississippi lien law for commercial and residential projects.  Senate Bill 2622 has now been sent to the Governor for his signature and provides lien rights to prime contractors, subcontractor and material suppliers. [Link to SB 2622]  The new lien law will require those seeking to file a lien to comply carefully with strict notice and filing requirements.  An error in complying with these requirements could lead to a “claim of lien” being ineffective or unenforceable. 

Some of the key points in the new lien law are:

     

  • There are no lien rights if a contractor has provided a payment bond. (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-431)

     

  • To have lien rights the party filing a "claim of lien" must be properly licensed by the Mississippi State Board of Contractors.  However, it should be noted that there are counties and municipalities that also have licensing requirements. (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-403)

There are numerous ways that a contractor and/or subcontractor or materialman can lose its "claim of lien", including:

     

  • If the contractor fails to provide a list of subcontractors to the owner within a reasonable period of time after requested or if the subcontractor fails to furnish a list of its subcontractors to the contractor within a reasonable period of time after requested (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-407).

     

  • If lien claimant fails to file its "claim of lien" within ninety (90) days following the last labor, services or materials provided (Miss. Code. Ann. §85-7-405(1)(b)).

     

  • If a subcontractor not in privity with the contractor fails to send written notice to the contractor, or, if there is no contractor, to the owner, within thirty (30) days after the first delivery of labor, services or materials to the property. (Miss. Code. Ann. §85-7-407(2))

     

  • If the owner has made payment to the contractor in reliance upon a lien waiver issued by the lien claimant (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-413(1)(a)).

     

  • If a "payment action" is not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days after the "claim of lien" is filed, the "claim of lien" is unenforceable (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-421(1)).

The basic requirements for filing a "claim of lien" are set forth in Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405.  If a party fails to comply with any of the requirements the "claim of lien" shall not be effective or enforceable.  The filing of a "claim of lien" is not intended to prejudice a party’s right to arbitration.

     

  • The right to claim a lien cannot be waived in advance of furnishing labor, service or materials (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-419).

     

  • The "special lien" granted by the statue to contractors, subcontractors and materialmen is limited to the amount due and owning under the terms of the express or oral contract, subcontract or purchase order (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-403(3)).  The "special lien" also includes interest (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-403(4)).

     

  • A judgment secured in a "payment action" to enforce a "claim of lien" is limited to a judgment in rem against the property and does not impose any personal liability upon the owner (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(d)(ii)).

     

  • If payment is made by the owner in reliance of a lien waiver or statements of the contractor, the aggregate lien amount of the subcontractors and materialmen not in privity with the contractor shall not exceed the unpaid balance of the contract price between the owner and the contractor at the time the first notice of lien is filed (Miss. Code Ann.§85-7-405(5)(a)).

     

  • Party seeking to assert a "claim of lien" must be in "substantial compliance" with the contract, subcontract or purchase order (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(a)).

     

  • "Claim of lien" must be filed in the chancery court of the county by a contractor, subcontractor or materialman where the property is located and within ninety (90) days of the last labor, services or materials provided.  It must also contain certain language notifying the owner of its right to contest the lien and be sent to the owner and contractor within two (2) days after it is filed (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(b)).

     

  • A subcontractor or material supplier not in privity with the contractor, or, if there is no contractor, with the owner, must provide notice within (30) days following the first delivery of labor, services, or materials as a condition precedent to filing a "claim of lien" (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-407(2)).

     

  • The "claim of lien" can be amended at any time provided there is compliance with certain procedures (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(e)).

     

  • All liens under Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-403 have equal priority.  If the proceeds are insufficient to satisfy all liens, distribution is on a pro-rata basis (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-403(3)(d)).

     

  • A "payment action" (lawsuit) to enforce the "claim of lien" must be commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the filing of the "claim of lien" (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(c)).  This period can be shortened by the owner or contractor filing a "Notice of Contest of the Lien". (See, Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-423(1))

     

  • A lis pendens notice must be filed with commencement of the "payment action" and furnished to the owner and contractor (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(1)(d)(ii)).

     

  • The court in its discretion may award reasonable costs, interest and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action against the owner to enforce a lien against the property (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-405(3)(c)).

     

  • The statute provides a procedure for "bonding off" a lien.  The amount of the bond is required to be one hundred ten percent (110%) of the amount of the "claim of lien" (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-415).

There are also substantial penalties for not complying with certain aspects of the lien law and filing a false "claim of lien".

     

  • The penalty for filing a knowingly false "claim of lien" is three (3) times the value of the "claim of lien" (Miss. Code Ann. 85-7-429).

     

  • The penalty for not paying a subcontractor after securing a waiver and release of lien without good cause is three (3) times the amount claimed on the face of the waiver and release (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-407(3)).

     

  • There is a penalty of three (3) times the actual damages suffered by an owner, purchaser or lender if the contractor falsely and knowingly submits a statement that the agreed price or reasonable value of the labor, services or materials has been paid or waived in writing by the lien claimant. (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-413(1)(b))

     

  • There is a penalty for failing to cancel a "claim of lien" if not accomplished within fifteen (15) days after fully paid of not less than $500/day plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-421(3))

Residential projects require a slightly different process.  Lien claimants on residential projects must give the residential owner a pre-lien notice at least ten (10) days notice before filing a "claim of lien". (Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-409(2))

This is just a taste of what the new Mississippi lien law contains and is neither intended to be a complete summary of the new lien law nor should it be solely relied upon in filing a "claim of lien".  The new statues are filled with hoops to jump through and hazards for those who have not carefully read it.  If you have any questions about this Mississippi’s new lien law you can contact Christopher Solop at csolop@bislawyers.com, Lynn Thompson at lynnthompson@bislawyers.com or go to the website for Biggs, Ingram & Solop, PLLC at www.bislawyers.com.

Delay in Issuance of Time Extension May Constitute Active Interference or Bad Faith

Contractors frequently encounter circumstances where they are entitled to an extension of the contract time and request the extension, but, in some instances, the owner and/or architect refuses to timely act on the request by either granting or denying the request. When a contractor encounters such a circumstance, it must decide whether to accelerate its performance to avoid missing the contract completion date and being assessed damages by the owner or maintain its schedule based upon the assumption the contractor will receive the extension and risk a potential termination for default by the owner for not making adequate progress toward the completion date. This is the very reason why the Mississippi Supreme Court suggested that the "refusal to grant extensions on a timely basis can reasonably be interpreted as active interference or bad faith" and could justify the award of damages to a contractor.

Contractors should therefore not just request an extension of time with supporting documentation but also demand a timely response. If no response is forthcoming, the contractor should then advise the owner and/or architect of the consequences of a further delay in a decision.

Waiver of Right to Assess Liquidated Damages

Contractors who have a liquidated damage provision in their contracts should be aware that their assessment can be waived by the conduct of the owner.  The Mississippi Supreme Court has found that an owner was estopped from asserting delay damages where it failed to timely assert that right.  Contractors faced with a liquidated damage provision may therefore be able to defend against assessment of these damages where the owner fails to affirmatively and timely assert the right to them.  This may occur when the owner waits until the end of the project, long after the completion date has passed, to claim its right to liquidated damages without deducting them as they accrue.

Senate Bill No. 2622--Proposed Legislation Changing Mississippi Lien Law

The Mississippi construction industry is about to undergo a radical change to its lien law in response to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Noatex Corp. v. King Construction of Houston, LLC, 732 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2013). Noatex affirmed a district court’s ruling that Mississippi’s "stop payment" statute was unconstitutional because it included no due process.  Construction Law Toolbox reported on this decision on October 15, 2013 [Click here to view Noatex post].  Rather than revise the "stop payment" law to cure the due process issue, legislators have decided to re-write Mississippi’s lien laws.  Senate Bill No. 2622 was introduced and would extend lien rights to second tier subcontractors and suppliers who currently have no lien or "stop payment" rights in Mississippi. [Click here to view SB No. 2622] This legislation can be followed by logging into www.legislature.ms.gov/. ‎

Biggs, Ingram & Solop, PLLC’s construction attorneys Christopher Solop and Lynn Thompson are closely monitoring the legislation. When a new lien law is passed lenders, owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers will need to understand the intricacies of all lien rights, including effectively filing a lien, penalties for false representation of actual and conditional payments; defending or eliminating a claim of lien, deadlines for initiating litigation or arbitration of a claim of lien, and penalties for false liens.

Oral contracts - be careful what you say.

There are plenty of different ways that a contractor can get in trouble with an owner or its subcontractors.  One is to talk too much and wind up entering into a separate enforceable oral contract.  The existence of an oral contract is a factual issue that will be decided by a jury or a judge in a trial without a jury, also known as a bench trial.  However, the formation of a contract requires three (3) simple elements: (1) an offer, (2) acceptance of the offer, and (3) consideration. If those elements are proven by one of the parties, an enforceable contract may have been formed and someone may have to pay.  There are some limited situations in which the law requires that a contract be in writing.  Nevertheless, the best course of action is to speak with caution so that there is no opportunity to argue that an oral contract was made.

And remember, the statute of limitations for an oral contract is three (3) years. Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-29. So, you may want to watch what you agree to do or you may lose sleep for quite some time until the statute of limitation expires.

PREGNANCY COSTS J.C. PENNEY $40,000 - WHAT WILL IT COST YOU?

On January 16, 2014, the EEOC issued a press release advising the public that J.C. Penney had agreed to pay $40,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC. In the lawsuit, the EEOC charged J.C. Penney refused to hire a female applicant for a salon position after she told the manager she was pregnant. Such actions are in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"). The EEOC tried to resolve the matter without litigation, but was unsuccessful. The settlement also requires J.C. Penney to implement an equal employment opportunity training and reporting program including posting of anti-discrimination notices.

The EEOC reports 4,901 pregnancy discrimination charges were filed in FY2006, up approximately 1,000 cases over FY 1997. However, there was a jump in cases beginning FY2007 that has remained high. In FY2011, 5,797 complaints were filed with the EEOC. Importantly, in FY 2011, employers paid out $17.2 million in monetary benefits, excluding amounts awarded in litigated cases, arising out of pregnancy discrimination claims. Such cases are costly not just in terms of cash outlay, but also in terms of employee morale, workplace environment and employer reputation.

Are you next? The PDA was passed in 1978 as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, after such an extended period of time, employers become lured into a false sense of security that everyone understands what they can and cannot do in the workplace. That simply is not true and employers who want to avoid costly claims such as that experienced by J.C. Penney must be proactive.

Construction companies are not immune to PDA claims. There are ways for all employers to reduce the risks to such claims. If you do not have a plan in place to address discrimination in the workplace, contact an attorney experienced in employment law to assist you in developing a program.

NEW YEAR MEANS COMPANY REPORTS DUE AGAIN!

The new year brings with it annual reporting requirements for companies doing business in Mississippi. All corporations and limited liability companies formed in Mississippi or qualified to do business here are required to file with the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office an annual report which must be completed online. The process is easy and takes only a few minutes of your time. However, failure to file your annual report may have serious consequences.

The reporting forms are available for completion on the Mississippi Secretary of State’s website. Take the time now to go complete your report so you won’t forget. You will be finished quickly and can mark that task off your "to-do" list until next year rolls around! It will be one less thing for you to worry about this year.

To file the annual report for a CORPORATION, click here.

To file the annual report for a LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OR LLC, click here.

Challenge to Arbitration Award Untimely

Once a party receives an arbitration award, it does not necessarily mean that it will voluntarily be paid. Frequently, the party receiving the arbitration award must have it confirmed by the court and converted into a judgment. However, the party against whom the award has been made may challenge the award and seek to have it vacated. If the dispute involves an agreement related to construction, the parties must follow the procedures set forth in the Construction Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §11-15-101, et seq. If the dispute is unrelated to construction, the parties must follow the procedures set forth in the Mississippi Arbitration Act ("MMA"), Miss. Code Ann. §11-15-1, et seq. In a recent decision, the Mississippi Court of Appeals found the party against whom an award had been granted failed not only to timely challenge the arbitration award but also failed to set forth sufficient grounds to justify vacating the arbitration award and reversed the trial court’s findings. [click here to view decision].

In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals first considered the timeliness requirements for vacating an arbitration award under both the MMA and the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§1, et seq. Under the FAA, a motion to vacate must be served within three months after the award is filed or delivered. 9 U.S.C.§12. However, under the MMA provides as follows:

An application to vacate or modify an award shall be made to the court at the term next after the making and publication of the award, upon at least five days’ notice, in writing, being given to the adverse party, if there be time for that purpose; and if there be not time, such court, or the judge thereof, may, upon good cause shown, order a stay of proceeding upon the award, either absolutely or upon such terms as shall appear just, until the next succeeding term of court.

 

Miss. Code Ann. §11-15-27.  Because the challenging party complied with neither of these provisions, the Court of Appeals found the trial court had erred when it concluded the challenger's motion for vacation was timely.

In addition, the challenger did not set forth any of the grounds that might justify the vacating of an arbitration award. These grounds are very limited and set forth in 9 U.S.C. §10(a) or under Miss. Code Ann. §11-15-23. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for finding otherwise.

Although this case dealt with the MMA, the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act also has strict filing deadlines for challenging an arbitration award and extremely limited grounds for challenging an award. It is therefore imperative that upon receipt of the arbitration award contractors consult their lawyer or the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act to determine the time limitations for modifying or vacating an arbitration award.

Dismissal of claim for sexual harassment does not mean the battle is over

Consider these facts: You hire a female to work as your leasing manager for your apartment complex on Monday, August 3rd. The manager’s workplace is a desk in a small front office. During her first week, two male maintenance workers enter her office and hover over her at her desk and "sniff" her. The two men sometimes go to the office alone and at other times go together. Despite being told several times by the female worker that their behavior was bothering her, the men continued the conduct. In fact, over the course of her first few days, the men "sniffed" her twelve times each.

On Wednesday of this first week of employment, the female worker complained to her supervisor. The supervisor responded to "let it slide" because "you know how men are like when they get out of prison." By Thursday, the supervisor decided to have a meeting to air the complaints. In the meeting, the female worker said that she did not like the men "sniffing" her. One maintenance worker claimed to have a medical condition, while the other worker stated that he "needed to get a release."

How would you handle this situation? What do you do now? In this case, the supervisor fired the female worker the same afternoon as the group meeting. The supervisor gave no reason for the firing. Unsurprisingly, the female worker sued for sexual harassment and retaliation. Before the case was ever tried by a jury, the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The lower court determined that the conduct of the maintenance worker was not objectively unreasonable so as to create a hostile work environment so there could be no sexual harassment. The lower court then concluded that, because a reasonable person would not believe that sexual harassment had occurred, the female could not have been fired for complaining about an unlawful employment practice and thus her claim of retaliation was unsupported.

The employer was probably rejoicing at this point, but the celebration didn’t last long. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Royal v. CCC&R res Arboles, L.L.C. considered the case on appeal. Click here to read the decision.  For whatever reason, the female worker did not appeal the sexual harassment claim itself, but only appealed the claim of retaliation. Needless to say, the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and sent the retaliation claim back to the lower court for trial.

In evaluating the case, the Fifth Circuit first discussed whether the maintenance workers’ conduct could constitute an unlawful practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conclusion was that a reasonable jury could determine that the workers’ conduct violated Title VII because it was carried out in a small, confined space over a short period of time with multiple instances of such behavior. The appeals court concluded that, in fact, "the only thing interrupting this conduct seems to have been [the female worker’s] termination." The court then addressed whether the female could have been fired in retaliation for her reporting of the conduct. The employer claimed the female was fired for "swatting a fly harder than was necessary and slamming a door." The court noted that those reasons are "legitimate," although they may not be "plausible." However, the termination of the female worker on the same day as the meeting was clearly an adverse employment action that, combined with all the other factors, could lead a reasonable jury to believe that the termination was done in retaliation. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for a jury to decide.

If you are thinking that this must be a very old case because the facts are so far-fetched, think again. These events occurred in 2009 and the Fifth Circuit just issued its opinion on November 21, 2013. Even though Title VII has been around since 1964, it does not mean that employees know what they should and should not do in the workplace, nor does it mean that supervisors know how to properly handle complaints. Many employers become trapped in a false sense of security that everyone knows how to act. Don’t be one of those employers. A training program for all employees—both workers and supervisors—will educate your workforce on acceptable behavior and will go a long way in defending against claims of this kind.

If you need assistance training your workforce you should call your attorney to review your current program, develop a training session for you and do on-site training at your convenience. Don’t wait until you face a claim in court to decide to be proactive!

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Determination that Mississippi "Stop Notice" Statute is Unconstitutional

On October 10, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court determination that Mississippi Code Annotation § 85-7-181 is unconstitutional. As prime contractors and owners know, an owner’s receipt of a stop-payment notice or "stop notice" could bring the flow of contract payments to a grinding halt. Miss. Code Ann. §85-7-181 required an owner to hold sufficient funds, otherwise due to a prime, to cover the amount alleged to be due and owing to a first-tier subcontractor who sent written notice that it was claiming the benefits of the "stop-payment" notice statute. Depending upon the amount of contract funds still remaining in the owner’s hands, if the owner paid the prime over the notice and thereby diminished sufficient funds available to pay the subcontractor, the stop-payment notice statute made the owner directly liable to the subcontractor. Owner-compliance, as intended by the statute, gave subcontractors (at least the first-tier) their only powerful tool to enforce payment rights on private, un-bonded projects.

The "stop-notice" statute has been in place for year, but on April 12, 2012, the Northern District of Mississippi ruled the statue unconstitutional on its face because it deprived prime contractors of property without due process. Noatex, an unlicensed California prime contractor, was hired by Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi ("APMM") to build an auto parts manufacturing facility. Noatex got into a billing dispute with its Mississippi subcontractor, King Construction of Houston, L.L.C. When King Construction sent a stop-payment notice to APMM asserting it was due over $260,000 from Noatex, that amount became bound in the hands of APMM. Noatex filed a declaratory judgment action, challenging the stop-payment notice statute as facially invalid and invalid as applied. The State of Mississippi, through the Attorney General’s Office, intervened in support of the stop-payment notice statute. Judge S. Allan Alexander agreed with Noatex, holding that simply by giving written notice of an alleged debt a contractor’s payment became bound in the hands of the owner—with no hearing before the money was bound—and thus the contractor was deprived of its property without due process.

The Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Alexander’s analysis. Among other things, the Fifth Circuit noted that the statute is "profound in its lack of procedural safeguards": no posting of a bond, no showing of exigent circumstances, and no sworn statement setting out the facts of the dispute. You can read the decision here.

Unless there are changes to the current stop payment law or the United States Supreme Court agrees to consider this issue, if appealed by the Mississippi Attorney General, there will be no "lien rights" for first-tier subcontractors. Only contractors with a direct contractual relationship with the owner will have lien rights.  Subcontractors may want to seek legal counsel concerning how to address stop payment notices that were to be filed or have been filed and to determine other remedies that may be available if their prime has failed to make payment.   

VA Issues Final Rule on Re-Verification of VOSBs and SDVOSBs

The Veterans Administration has published its final rule requiring re-verification of Veteran Owned Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business status every 2 years instead of annually.  The 2-year period for verification had previously been an interim rule.  Click here for the final rule.  The final rule is effective August 22, 2013.

Who can be a "Qualifying Party" for a Contractor's Certificate of Responsibility - Update

On May 13, 2009, I published a blog titled "Who can be a "Qualifying Party" for a Contractor’s Certificate of Responsibility". [Click to view blog post] The blog article states that the requirement for a contractor’s Certificate of Responsibility for a public contract is $50,000 and a private contract is $100,000. Since the writing of that blog article, the statute has been amended and effective July 1, 2010, a Certificate of Responsibility is required on all contracts, both public and private, in excess of $50,000.

Fifth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict Awarding Damages for Breach of "Exclusive Teaming Agreement" for USAF Procurement

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in X Technologies, Inc. v. Marvin Test Systems, Inc., 2013 U.S.App. LEXIS 11739 proves the power of a single-letter word. It also proves that even the most reasonable commercial expectations should not color one’s perception of what is actually written in a contract. This focuses on that portion of the X Technologies decision showing that "exclusive teaming" does not mean "mutually exclusive teaming". One partner may have to dance with the one that brung him, but the other partner does not!

The United States Air Force (USAF) sought to purchase a new testing system for its Paveway II Bombs, which are manufactured by Raytheon. The testing system sought by the USAF was the TS-217, which is manufactured by Geotest. However, the hardware and software for the TS-217 are owned by Raytheon. A successful bid for the new TS-217 testing system would require access to the hardware and software (and the right to modify it) for Raytheon’s Paveway II bombs.

The USAF solicitation was initially set-aside for small businesses. X Tech, a small business contractor, decided it would bid on the procurement and reverse-engineer the Raytheon data. X Tech contacted Geotest and negotiated a teaming agreement for the TS-217 hardware, software, and modification rights. X Tech confirmed its oral agreement with Geotest in writing. The portion of that agreement relevant to the litigation stated:

This is an exclusive agreement between X Tech and Geotest.  X Tech will submit Geotest’s workshare as part of X-Tech’s proposal as a response to this RFP. Geotest will not team up with any other company for solicitation FA8224-09-R-0104 except that Geotest may provide prices for the TS-217 only (without any software licenses, support or training) to other potential bidders.

X Tech then submitted 2 bids. One of its bids was on the specified equipment and used Geotest as a critical subcontractor. This "conforming bid" was for $3.2 million. X Tech’s second bid ("non-conforming bid") was based on test equipment other than the TS-217 specified in the Solicitation, and was substantially lower-priced than its confirming bid. X Tech was the only bidder.

The USAF rejected X Tech’s non-conforming bid and its conforming bid because the government cost estimate was substantially lower than $3.2 million. The solicitation was amended to open it up to "full and open" competition. In response to the "full and open" solicitation, X Tech submitted its teamed bid with Geotest. However, Geotest also submitted a bid separately from X Tech for $2.4 million. The USAF awarded to Geotest.

X Tech sued Geotest in Texas state court (it was subsequently removed to federal court on diversity grounds), claiming that Geotest breached the exclusive teaming agreement by teaming with Raytheon in a separate bid. Geotest argued it had not teamed with Raytheon and that it submitted its own, independent bid as merely a licensee of Raytheon data. Geotest also argued that when X Tech submitted its separate, non-conforming bid on the procurement when it was a set-aside for small business, that act constituted a prior material breach of the "exclusive teaming agreement". The jury’s verdict was for X Tech, and the district court entered a final judgment awarding X Tech $336,000 plus attorney’s fees.

One of Geotest’s issues on appeal was the district court’s determination that X Tech did not commit a prior material breach by submitting its separate bid using other than Geotest-manufactured equipment. X Tech argued that the unambiguous language of the teaming agreement only limited Geotest’s ability to team with another contractor and that it did not limit X Tech’s ability to submit a bid that did not include Geotest equipment.

Refusing to imply any mutuality of obligation, the Fifth Circuit sided with X Tech and upheld the verdict against Geotest, in part, on the express terms of the "exclusive teaming agreement", finding that explicitly restricting one party’s ability to team but remaining silent as to the other’s "suggests that the restriction is unilateral". Further, as the teaming agreement required that X Tech submit "a" response including Geotest as its teaming partner, X Tech was not restricted from submitting more than one response to the solicitation. Thus, X Tech’s submission of a competing bid that did not include Geotest did not constitute a "prior material breach" that would have freed Geotest to submit its own bid with Raytheon in response to the amended solicitation.

Can you Include a Right to Appeal an Arbitration Decision in your Arbitration Clause?

I recently came across a decision form the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that caught my attention. Although it was not construction related, it addressed a situation where the parties had included the right to appeal an arbitration award in their agreement to arbitrate. [click for decision] This would appear to be inconsistent with the concept of finality, which is one of the public policy reasons for arbitration. Further, under the Mississippi Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-1, et seq. and the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-101, et seq. there are extremely limited grounds for having an arbitration award challenged.

Nonetheless, in this district court decision, the federal judge thought that even though there were no Mississippi court decisions addressing this issue, that if confronted with the question of whether parties could include a right to appeal an arbitration award for reasons stated in the arbitration clause, the Mississippi court would enforce the provision allowing an appeal. The district court, quoting the Fifth Circuit, stated that "when, as here, the parties agree contractually to subject an arbitration award to expand judicial review, federal arbitration policy demands that the court conduct its review according to the terms of the arbitration contract." (citation omitted)

There remain no Mississippi decisions adopting the position of the district court. However, this decision should highlight the need for contractors to carefully read arbitration clauses included in their contract. If you have concerns with any aspect of the arbitration clause, those concerns should be resolved before you sign the contract.

Can you Include a Right to Appeal an Arbitration Decision in your Arbitration Clause?

I recently came across a decision form the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that caught my attention. Although it was not construction related, it addressed a situation where the parties had included the right to appeal an arbitration award in their agreement to arbitrate. [click for decision] This would appear to be inconsistent with the concept of finality, which is one of the public policy reasons for arbitration. Further, under the Mississippi Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-1, et seq. and the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-101, et seq. there are extremely limited grounds for having an arbitration award challenged.

Nonetheless, in this district court decision, the federal judge thought that even though there were no Mississippi court decisions addressing this issue, that if confronted with the question of whether parties could include a right to appeal an arbitration award for reasons stated in the arbitration clause, the Mississippi court would enforce the provision allowing an appeal. The district court, quoting the Fifth Circuit, stated that "when, as here, the parties agree contractually to subject an arbitration award to expand judicial review, federal arbitration policy demands that the court conduct its review according to the terms of the arbitration contract." (citation omitted)

There remain no Mississippi decisions adopting the position of the district court. However, this decision should highlight the need for contractors to carefully read arbitration clauses included in their contract. If you have concerns with any aspect of the arbitration clause, those concerns should be resolved before you sign the contract.