Lozano Smith's Construction Advice and Litigation ("CAL") attorneys provide timely and cost-sensitive legal services related to public works construction
projects of all kinds. We assist clients with project planning, contract language, and bid issues at the beginning of a project; project management and
change orders during a project; and completion, payment, claims and litigation at project closeout. Our dispute resolution and litigation expertise spans
all disputes, whether standard (extra work, delay and stop notice claims) or complex (contractor defaults, surety disputes and false claims). We have
successfully represented clients in construction consultant disputes and construction defect litigation, as well.
Lozano Smith has advised and represented public entities in California on virtually all aspects of public works construction since the firm's inception in 1988. We adhere to a philosophy of helping our clients avoid costly delays and costs by proactively identifying and avoiding potential claims whenever possible, yet simultaneously protecting the District's interests and preparing for litigation in the event disputes cannot be resolved.
To learn more about the breadth of our construction expertise, please click on any of the following areas of expertise:
February 2019 Number 12 A California appellate court has ruled that lay public opinions on nontechnical issues concerning a project's size and general appearance can provide substantial evidence of environmental impact, triggering the need to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Environmental Quality Act CEQA generally requires public agencies to identify potentially significant impacts of projects they ca...
January 2019 Number 2 Recent legislation modifies the skilled and trained workforce requirement for certain public works projects, shifting much of the burden for compliance to subcontractors. The new law also authorizes the California Labor Commissioner to investigate suspected violations of the statute and impose civil penalties in specified circumstances. Background In recent years, contractors have been required to utilize a "skilled and trained workforce" for "design-build" an...
July 2017 Number 42 State lawmakers have extended the deadlines to apply for and encumber money dedicated to energy efficiency projects at schools and community colleges - the program known as Proposition 39 - and have created a new program to fund such projects indefinitely. Proposition 39 was scheduled to sunset June 30, 2018. Now, Senate Bill (SB) 110 has extended the deadline for encumbering Proposition 39 funds by one year, to June 30, 2019. At the same time, the bill creates the ...
July 2017 Number 38 Senate Bill (SB) 96, passed this June as part of the California state budget, contains provisions designed to encourage more contractors to participate on small public works projects. Public works projects under $25,000 and maintenance projects under $15,000 are now exempt from the requirements of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) registration program. The new law also permits contractors to register for up to three years in advance and imposes new penalt...
May 2017 Number 23 Another California appellate court has ruled that a lease-leaseback (LLB) contract made without competitive bidding is legally enforceable. In California Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction, Inc. et al. (May 2, 2017, No. A145078) [nonpub. opn.] (Taber), the First District Court of Appeal agreed withMcGee v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 235, finding that competitive bidding is not required for an LLB contract. Although the appella...
May 2017 Number 24 The law regarding what obligations a design professional may assume to defend and indemnify a client against liability has been amended once again, and the resulting changes will affect the terms that can be included in design professionals' contracts. On April 28, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 496, which partially limits the duty of design professionals to defend and indemnify a client against liability for claims arising from a design pro...
December 2016 Number 88 According to the California Department of Education Office of Financial Accountability and Information Services, pursuant to Public Contract Code section 20111(a), the bid threshold for K-12 school districts' purchases of equipment, materials, supplies and services (except construction services) has been adjusted to $88,300, effective January 1, 2017. This represents an increase of 0.626 percent over the 2016 bid limit. The notice may be viewed here. The Califor...
|Oak Grove Elementary School District v. George W. Putris, as Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV261473. Represented the District in a complex matter related to a parcel tax authorized by the District's Board and approved by voters in 1991. The District returned to the voters every four years to re-obtain approval to increase the appropriations limit to spend tax revenues, but uncertainty loomed in 2014 regarding whether the District still had authority to collect taxes in 2014 after not needing to increase the annual appropriations limit that same year. The County Tax Collector was unclear whether it still had the authority to collect the taxes, therefore leading to Lozano Smith filing a lawsuit on behalf of the District seeking a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the County Tax Collector to collect parcel taxes. The lawsuit resulted in a stipulated judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Tax Collector to collect the parcel tax.|
|Huntington Beach City School District v. Hardy & Harper et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05CC03340. Prosecuted claims on behalf of school district against general contractor, contactor’s surety, architect and design engineer arising from defective construction of a kindergarten playground. Case settled through negotiations. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.|
|Lewis Jorge Construction v. Los Angeles Unified School District. Prosecuted and defended competing multi-million dollar contract claims arising from the building of the Queen Ann Elementary School project. Contractor brought extra work, differing site conditions and delay/impact claims. Conducted law and motion and deposed dozens of percipient and expert witnesses. Matter settled through mediation before trial. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.|
|Morgan Hill Unified School District v. Minter & Fahy Construction Company, Inc. et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. CV772368 (2002-2003). As part of a three week jury trial, successfully represented the school district against contractor and pipe manufacturer arising from underground fuel storage tank that leaked, and obtained judgment in excess of $2 million including interest and attorney’s fees.|
|Modtech Holdings v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District. On two separate elementary school projects totaling $4 million, the District withheld substantial sums to cover damages caused the contractor. One project under the control of the contractor had a fire, with the contractor refusing to compensate the District. The other project suffered construction deficiencies in the stucco and roof. The contractor sued for improper withholding and the District cross-complained for additional damages, resulting in a $1 million dispute. After discovery and expert investigation revealed additional claims for the District, the case resolved very favorably for the District a few months short of trial.|
|R. Baker, Inc. v. Coast Unified School District. A school district was subject to multi-million dollar design, delay and defect claims related to construction of a new elementary school located in the Coastal Zone. The project also suffered from an inadequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), thus causing the school district to be fined in excess of $300,000. The litigation settled favorably for the District at mediation.|
|Mountain Cascade v. Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District entered a contract with the plaintiff to install a recycled water pipeline. As part of the original plans and specifications, the contract also called for the additional installation of fiber optic conduits. However, after award the District deleted the fiber optic work from the project since the bid on that line item was excessive. The District then added back a small portion of the fiber optic work that was within the budget. The contractor sued the District for lost profits based on the deleted work. Our attorney won summary judgment for the District based on the broad right to add and delete work, and successfully defended the decision on appeal.|
|Pajaro Valley USD v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., et al. Due to a combination of construction and architectural roof design defects, a new district school was infected with mold throughout its buildings. Lozano Smith attorneys successfully represented the school district in recovering in excess of $3 million for remedial efforts and new construction from litigation prosecuted against the general contractor, architect, and insurer on the district insurance risk policy.|
|Teichert Construction v. City of Stockton, et al. During a $15 million dual grade separation project, the contractor and one of its subcontractors submitted claims of more than $3 million based on delay. Despite many issues of delay caused by utilities and railroad companies, the case settled favorably at pre-discovery mediation for under $1 million despite a significant number of delay days for which the City had to take responsibility.|
|City of La Puente v. Pert Construction, et al. Recovered in excess of $2.6 million on a construction defect and design case in Los Angeles Superior Court where the contractor’s failure to adequately waterproof a pre-existing structure during construction resulted in extensive water infiltration and damage. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.|