Construction Contracting Opportunities
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities, Procurement Department Bid Calendar
Construction Professional and Trade Associations
Alaska Mechanical Contractors Association
Alaska State Home Building Association
American Institute of Architects - Alaska Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. - Alaska Chapter
Associated General Contractors of Alaska
Building Industry Association of Southeast Alaska
Building Owners and Managers Association - Anchorage Chapter
Interior Alaska Building Association
Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
National Electrical Contractors Association - Alaska Chapter
State and Local Government Links
Alaska Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development
Alaska Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development - Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Alaska Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development - Division of Workers' Compensation
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities - Construction and Maintenance Contracting
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities - Design and Construction Standards Section
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities - Procurement
Upon Owner's Termination-for-Convenience, Contractor Must Cease All Work and Cancel All Orders
Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. & Public Facilities, 71 P.3d 865 (Alaska 2003)
In this case, a state agency accepted bids on a contract to widen a state highway. Shortly after the state awarded the contract to a contractor, the state terminated it under a termination-for-convenience clause in the contract. The contractor sued for costs and damages. A hearing officer awarded damages to the contractor, but did not award prejudgment interest. The trial court affirmed, and the parties appealed.
The Supreme Court of Alaska held that once the state serves notice of termination, the termination-for-convenience clause in the contract requires the contractor to stop all work, place no further orders, and cancel all existing orders. It also held that although the contractor’s bid included amounts for mobilization and demobilization, the contractor was only entitled to mobilization costs actually incurred, and not to demobilization costs that customarily become part of the next project. In addition, the court held that administrative appeals do not qualify for prejudgment interest.
Reasonable Methods for Computing Damages are Actual Total Method and Jury Verdict Method
Power Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor & Hintze, 960 P.2d 20 (Alaska 1998)
In this case, a contractor brought a legal malpractice action against its former law firm and several attorneys. The contractor’s case was a “trial-within-a-trial” approach, which required the contractor to demonstrate the merits of its underlying case (concerning a deficient powerline construction project) as part of its malpractice case. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the contractor, and both parties appealed the damages award in the jury’s verdict.
The decision was affirmed in part. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the party seeking damages must provide a reasonable basis for computing the award. The court considered four methods of proving damages in a construction contract case (the actual cost method, the total cost method, the modified total cost method, and the jury verdict method), and cited cases holding that the total cost method (i.e. calculating damages by determining the difference between the actual costs incurred on a project plus a reasonable amount for profit, and the contract price) and the modified total cost method (i.e. calculating damages by fixing the amounts actually spent under various provisions of a contract and then comparing those costs with some form of estimate-derived reasonable cost) are disfavored. The court concluded that, although the preferred method is the actual cost method (i.e. calculating damages by totaling each element of extra expense incurred because of an alleged breach of contract), the jury verdict method (i.e. presenting actual data to a finder of fact) is also a reasonable basis for computing damages.
State Agency Entitled to Liquidated Damages Even Though Agency Caused Delay
Southeast Alaska Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. & Public Facilities, 791 P.2d 339 (Alaska 1990)
This case concerned a public construction project that suffered from design and material deficiencies. When the contractor failed to complete the project, the agency sued and won on a claim for liquidated damages. The contractor appealed, arguing that because the agency was responsible for the delay, it should not be entitled to damages.
The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed. A liquidated damages provision is enforceable if: (1) the liquidated amount is a reasonable forecast of compensation for the harm caused by the breach, and (2) the harm caused is difficult to assess accurately. The court noted that even if the agency were responsible for deficiencies in the design, when the contractor agreed to an extension of the project deadline, it was bound by that extension.
General Contractor's Recovery for Invalidation of Contract Limited if Contractor Was on Notice of Statutory or Regulatory Violation
Earthmovers of Fairbanks, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. & Public Facilities, 765 P.2d 1360 (Alaska 1989)
In this case, the Supreme Court of Alaska considered as a case of first impression what remedy is appropriate for a contractor who is awarded a public contract that turns out to violate a statute or regulation. The facts concerned Earthmovers of Fairbanks (EM), the apparent low bidder for a public project. When a discrepancy was discovered in the second lowest bid and corrected as permitted by the applicable Standard Specification, the state agency awarded the project to the second lowest bidder. EM sued and won a permanent injunction. EM also prevailed on appeal, and the contract was awarded to EM on April 27. However, on April 30, the Supreme Court of Alaska reversed itself and on May 1, it entered a stay. Subsequently, EM sued the state agency for damages.
The court considered what damages, if any, should be awarded to EM in equity. It noted that where contracts are let in a manner which contravenes the purpose of competitive bidding, courts have declared them to be void. Under such circumstances, an agency can be estopped from denying the validity of a contract if its agent acted in an “irregular” fashion, technically or procedurally. However, if the contractor was on direct notice that the procedures violated statutory or regularly requirements, the contractor’s recovery will be limited. Because EM was on direct notice, the court concluded that EM was entitled only to its actual mobilization costs, and not all the costs associated with equipment standby time.
Use of Total Cost Method of Calculating Damages Fails to Prove Cause of Damages
Conom Alaska v. Bell Lavalin, Inc., 842 P.2d 148 (Alaska 1992)
In this case, when a dispute arose regarding the schedule for completing construction, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for professional negligence and breach of contract. The trial court granted the contractor’s motion to dismiss the professional negligence claim because the subcontractor failed to adequately establish a basis for the jury to determine the amount of damages. The subcontractor appealed.
The decision was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the party seeking to prove damages carries the burden of proving causation and the amount. The subcontractor’s method for calculating damages amounted to a “total cost” method, which the court has disapproved because the method fails to create a link between each specific delay and its related cost.
Liquidated Damages Clause in Prime Contract is Incorporated in Subcontract when Subcontract Contains Conduit Clause
Indus. Indem. Co. v. Wick Constr. Co., 680 P.2d 1100 (Alaska 1984)
In this case, the Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) awarded a contract for the construction of a courthouse and office building to a general contractor. The prime contract featured a liquidated damages clause limiting the contractor’s liability to $400 per day of delay. The subcontract between the general contractor and subcontractor included a so-called “flow down” or “conduit clause” incorporating the liquidated damages clause from the prime contract. When the general contractor sued the subcontractor for delays, the trial court awarded the general contractor $765,654.00 in total damages. The subcontractor appealed, arguing that the liquidated damages clause applied.
The decision was reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that when a subcontract contains a conduit clause, the parties to a subcontract assume the correlative positions to the prime contract. In other words, where a conduit clause is used, the same rights and duties will flow equally from the owner through the general contractor to the subcontractor. The court remanded the case to trial for a new calculation of damages in accordance with its opinion.
Disfavored Total Cost Method of Calculating Damages May Be Used Only in Limited Circumstances
Geolar, Inc. v. Gilbert/Commw. Inc. of Mich., 874 P.2d 937 (Alaska 1994)
In this case, a contractor sued an electric company for breach of contract against the company’s agent for tortious interference with contract. The contractor also sued the electric company for breach of contract, and calculated its damages based on direct costs, lost of efficiency costs, and delay costs. The trial court dismissed the contractor’s claim for intentional interference with contract, but the breach of contract claim went to trial, where a jury based an award of damages to the contractor on the contractor’s calculation.
The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed and remanded the issues of tortious interference with contract and damages. It held that an agent whose conduct is motivated by a desire to protect the principal’s interest is privileged or justified to act on the principal’s behalf, and directed the trial court to inquire after the agent’s motivation. With respect to damages, the Court held that the contractor’s calculation of damages was too similar to the disfavored “total cost method” of calculating damages because it assumed all deviations from the expected course of performance resulted from the electric company’s breach. On remand, the trial court was directed to determine the acceptability of the contractor’s method, which can be used as a last resort method only if the contractor can show: (1) the nature of the particular losses made it impossible or highly impracticable to determine them with a reasonable degree of accuracy; (2) the contractor’s bid was realistic; (3) its actual costs were reasonable; and (4) it was not responsible for the added expenses.
Alaska State Regulations
Alaska Administrative Code
Title 8 - Labor and Workforce Development
Title 8, Ch. 15 - Alaska Wages and Hours
Title 8, Ch. 25 - Payment of Wages
Title 8, Ch. 30 - Public Contracts
Title 8, Ch. 61 - Occupational Safety and Health
Title 12 - Professional and Vocational Regulations
Title 12, Ch. 21 - Construction Contractors
Local and Specialized Codes
City of Anchorage Development Services - Building Codes
City of Fairbanks Building and Fire Codes
City of Juneau Community Development Department - Building Codes
Alaska State Statutes
Title 8 - Business and Professions
Title 8, Ch. 18 - Construction Contractors and Home Inspectors
Title 8, Ch. 48 - Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors
Title 23 - Labor and Workers Compensation
Title 23, Ch. 10 - Employment Practices and Working Conditions
Title 23, Ch. 25 - Employer's Liability for Negligence
Title 23, Ch. 30 - Alaska Workers' Compensation Act
Title 23, Ch. 40 - Labor Organizations
Title 36 - Public Contracts
Additional statutes can be found here.
