The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has issued a SBA Information Notice stating that the change made to size determinations in the Small Business Runway Extension Act (“SBREA”) is not yet effective. The SBREA did not contain an effective date, and the Small Business Act requires that the SBA’s Administrator make size determination changes effective through a rulemaking process.

The SBA Notice states that until SBA changes its regulations, concerns must report their receipts based on a 3-year average and not based on the SBREA’s new 5-year average: “The change … is not presently effective and is therefore not applicable to present contracts, offers, or bids until implemented through the standard rulemaking process.” The SBA Information Notice is linked here.


Individuals frequently sign contracts without reading and understanding the significance of an arbitration provision which may be included and the type of dispute to which it will apply.  In a 2017 decision, the Mississippi Court of Appeals addressed for the first time “whether a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause may be brought post-arbitration.” [Click here for Decision] In that case, the contractor had entered into an agreement for services with an attorney that included an arbitration provision.  It provided the arbitration provision would apply to “any disputes between the parties which arise from, or is related to, a claimed breach of this agreement, the professional services rendered by Davis & Feder, P.A., or any claim for legal and or professional malpractice…”

The contractor claimed the law firm mishandled the contractor’s claims and sued the law firm for malpractice.  The parties proceeded to arbitration where an award was issued in favor of the law firm and denied the contractor any relief.  The contractor then sued the lawyer for malpractice in state court claiming the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitration clause in the contract was unconscionable and the arbitrator exceeded his authority.  The trial court disagreed with the contractor and the contractor appealed.  The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court finding the contractor had waived its right to challenge the arbitration provision in the contract.  The Court, citing supporting decisions from a number of other jurisdictions, found that “participation in arbitration proceedings waives the right to object to an arbitrator’s authority.”

The lesson to be learned from this case is if you what to challenge an arbitration provision you need to raise the issue before and not after the arbitration proceeding.

On December 17, 2018, the Small Business Runway Extension Act was signed into law by President Trump and became P.L. 115-324. The new law amends the Small Business Act at 15 USC§632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(11) by enlarging the period in which small business size status must be determined for those concerns whose size is determined on the basis of gross receipts. Prior to the new law, that period was required to be “not less than 3 years”. Now, that period has been increased to a period of “not less than 5 years.” This legislative change was introduced in H.R. 6330, which you can find here. Providing for a “longer view” of revenues was thought necessary to prevent businesses from prematurely out-sizing their small business status due to recent periods of rapid growth.

Pursuant to the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) regulations at 13 CFR Part 121, the size of a concern must be “small” as of the date it submits its initial offer that includes price. The SBA’s regulation at 13 CFR §121.104(c) defined the “period of measurement” for size as a concern’s 3 most recently completed fiscal years. On the basis of the newly amended Small Business Act, the “period of measurement” would be a concern’s 5 most recently completed fiscal years.

On December 11, 2018, the United States Secretary of Transportation announced the award of grants to pay for ninety-one (91) infrastructure revitalization projects through the DOT’s Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (“BUILD”) program. Projects funded through BUILD grants include road, rail, port, and transit infrastructure projects.

The two projects awarded in Mississippi include (1) a $13 million grant to fund road reconstruction and bridge replacements along 2.6 miles of Holly Springs Road and (2) a $25 million grant to fund road and bridge improvements of approximately 9 miles of SR 19 from SR 492 to Philadelphia.

Projects in Mississippi’s neighboring states were also awarded. Two projects in Alabama will be funded for a total $28.2 million; one project in Arkansas will be funded for $25 million, two projects totaling $41.4 million will be funded in Louisiana, and one project for $25 million will be funded in Tennessee.

For a list and description of all 91 awards, please see the link to the DOT announcement here.

Mississippi procurement statutes are clear and unambiguous with regard to the requirement for the listing of a contractor’s certificate of responsibility on the outside of the bid envelope, if the bid is more than $50,000.00. It is also critical to remember the contractor’s name of the bid must be the name recorded as the holder of the Certificate of Responsibility with the Mississippi State Board of Contractors. On a number of occasions, contractors have made the fatal error of submitting their bid using an improper or incomplete corporate name. The result can be the rejection of a contractor’s bid because the entity signing the bid has no Certificate of Responsibility. Paying attention to this one small detail can save your bid from being rejected.

On August 16, 2018, the Mississippi Supreme Court laid to rest any confusion regarding how public authorities are to address the situation where the apparent low bidder’s bid exceeds the “allocated funds” by more than ten percent (10%). [Click here to see Decision]. The procurement in question involved bids for a construction project in the City of Clarksdale (“the City”). The bids received exceeded the “allocated funds” by more than ten percent (10%). Hemphill Construction Company, Inc. was the second low bidder and protested the award to the apparent low bidder and demanded the City reject all bids and re-advertise. Rather than reject the bids, the City increased its budget to provide the necessary funds to award the contract to the apparent low bidder. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that the City’s action to increase the “allocated funds” after bids were opened violated the procurement laws and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

This decision makes clear that public authorities cannot change the “allocated funds” for a Project after bids are opened and then discovers the apparent low bidder’s price exceeds the “allocated funds” by more than ten percent (10%). However, if the apparent low bidder’s price is within ten percent (10%) the public authority can utilize Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(iv) to negotiate with the low bidder.


Biggs, Ingram & Solop attorneys were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America, 2019.

Christopher Solop was selected for inclusion in the fields of Construction Law, Government Contracts Law and Litigation – Construction

Lynn Patton Thompson was selected for inclusion in the field of Construction Law.

Otis Johnson, Jr. was selected for inclusion in the fields of Oil and Gas Law, Energy Law and Natural Resources Law.

Robert A. Biggs, III was selected for inclusion in the fields of Insurance Law and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Stan T. Ingram was selected for inclusion in the fields of Oil and Gas Law, Energy Law and Natural Resources Law

Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Their belief has always been that the quality of a peer review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.


One of the most frequently asked questions when a party is faced with litigation is whether or not they will be able to recover attorney fees. The general rule is that attorney fees cannot be awarded unless there is a contract provision or statute permitting their award. An exception to this rule is if there is a finding of bad faith on the part of one of the parties, which is a difficult standard to meet.

The rules in an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) changed this general rule. Under AAA Rule 48 (d)(ii) “[t]he award of the arbitrator may include an award of attorneys’ fees if all parties have requested such an award or it is authorized by law or their arbitration agreement.” (Emphasis added.) This means that if the parties file a demand for arbitration on the AAA Demand for Arbitration form and check the box for attorneys fees and the opposing party files an answer to the demand on the AAA Answering Statement form and also checks the box for attorneys fees or in its answer demands attorney fees, they can be awarded by the arbitrator. At least one state court has determined that this is because both parties have “agreed” to the award of attorney fees.

Under the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-119(4), “An arbitrator may award attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party.” This is statutory authority granting the power of the arbitrator to award attorney fees. There is no similar provision in Mississippi’s general arbitration statutes found at Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-1 et seq.

The important point to take away from this information is if both parties demand attorney fees, be prepared to accept the risk of not prevailing on the merits of your case and being compelled to pay attorney fees even where the contract does not require such payment. When you negotiate a contract, know what any arbitration clause in the contract provides and consider whether you need to modify it to write out AAA Rule (d)(ii) and/or Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-119(4) to limit the award of attorney fees.

Mississippi’s Little Miller Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 31-5-51, et seq., which is modeled after the federal Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§3131, et seq., requires that a subcontractor file suit on its payment bond claim “within one (1) year after the day on which the last labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action and not later.” Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-53(b). This language appears to be straight forward. Nonetheless, the majority of appellate circuit courts have taken the position that “labor” or “material” furnished for minor work (e.g., punch list, remedial, or warranty-related work) does not toll the statute of limitation. Only “significant” work (relative to the nature of the subcontract work) constitutes “labor” under the Miller Act. Even where the subcontractor has a remaining contractual obligation to perform punch list items or minor corrective work, such work will not toll the 1-year statute of limitation. This means that a subcontractor should carefully monitor the date the last of its labor or material was furnished that rendered their portion of the work functional or substantially complete.


If you have been involved in a construction related arbitration and received an award, you should know it can only be challenged under the limited grounds set forth in the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-101, et seq. One of the grounds for challenging an arbitration award is there has been an “evident miscalculation” by the arbitrator. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-135(1)(a).

The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, was recently asked what qualifies as an “evident miscalculation” in D.W. Caldwell, Inc. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company [click here for the Supreme Court decision]. In that case, D.W. Caldwell, Inc. (“Caldwell”) had secured an arbitration award against W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (“Yates”). When Caldwell went to confirm the arbitration award, Yates objected claiming that there was an “evident miscalculation” in the arbitration award. The circuit court, over the objection of Caldwell, allowed Yates to offer documents from the arbitration and testimony to establish the “evident miscalculation” and reduced the arbitration award.

The Court, citing its past decisions, reminded the circuit court that its review of arbitration awards was extremely limited and restricted to the exceptions identified in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-135. Based upon the language of the statute, the Court concluded that “the ‘evident’ (plain, obvious, or clearly understood) miscalculation must be apparent from nothing more than the four corners of the award and the contents of the arbitration record.” Otherwise, “[l]ooking to evidence beyond ‘the face’ of the award or the arbitration record allows the parties to retry the matter in front of a trial judge.” The Court went on to provide guidance as to what might be considered by the circuit court in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award holding “courts requested to confirm, modify and/or vacate arbitration awards are not at liberty to permit the examination of witnesses.” The Court therefore reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case directing it to confirm Caldwell’s arbitration award.

The significance of this decision is that parties to arbitration should make sure that the hearing record is complete. However, even if the record is complete, thoughtful consideration should be given as to whether there are sufficient grounds to seek modifying or vacating the arbitration award before making such a request to a court.