Our clients asked and we responded. From planning to disposition, Pillsbury’s Development Life Cycle Map illustrates the capabilities of Pillsbury attorneys to represent clients as they face eleven key stops along The Path. Designed as a quick reference, our Development Life Cycle Map is available in hard copy and digitally.
Photo: Mark Morgan, Eleven, Taken July 27, 2014 – Creative Commons
In Awardee Protests: A New Horizon?, my colleague John Jensen and I discuss a new decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims — National Air Cargo Group , Inc., v. U.S. — that opens the door to the possibility of a bid protest by an awardee under a multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. Previous decisions had held that a multiple-award IDIQ awardee lacks standing to protest the government’s award of additional contracts.
Builders and contractors may be interested to learn that, in the past few days, the Supreme Courts of Texas 
and Colorado, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have issued significant rulings addressing the separation of powers at the state and federal level.
An Ordinance’s Overreach
On April 29, the Supreme Court of Texas, in BCCA Appeal Group, Inc. v. City of Houston, Texas, held, in an 8 to 1 ruling, that the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) and the TCAA’s enforcement mechanisms imbedded in the Texas Water Code preempt a City of Houston ordinance that required emissions-emitting facilities located within the city limits to register their facilities with the City of Houston, and to pay registration fees. Although the TCAA expressly provides that municipalities like the City of Houston can pass air quality ordinances, the Court noted that they cannot pass local laws inconsistent with the TCAA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) enforcement policy and procedures. Indeed, the City of Houston’s ordinance makes unlawful what the TCAA allows. While the ordinance expressly incorporated the air quality rules of the TCEQ, this was not enough to save the ordinance from being invalidated to the extent that registration was required that could result in criminal enforcement by the City of Houston. The consequences of this decision may result in a concentration of air quality enforcement authority in the TCEQ, and cities in Texas will need to exercise caution in promulgating local ordinance that could conflict with state policy.
On April 15, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would amend its current bid protest regulations, codified at 4 C.F.R. Part 21. The proposed rule adds a degree of formality to the protest process, but overall the rule mainly codifies or clarifies existing protest practices. In Proposed Changes to GAO Bid Protest Rules: Greater Formality, Overall Familiarity, my colleagues John Jensen, Dick Oliver, Meghan Doherty and I summarize the key proposed amendments.
In False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Update: Supreme Court Oral Argument Forecasts Continued Vitality of Controversial Doctrine, we, along with our colleague Danielle Vrabie, report on the recent oral argument before SCOTUS,
in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7, a case expected to resolve the current split among federal courts of appeals on the so-called “implied certification” theory of liability under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). SCOTUS’ decision, whatever it is, will have an enormous impact on the federal contractor and subcontractor community. If SCOTUS follows the expansive interpretation of implied certification endorsed by the First Circuit in Escobar, then federal contractors and subcontractors will be vulnerable to the risk that the government will escalate any lack of contract compliance into an FCA investigation.
Additional Source: SCOTUS Expected To Resolve Circuit Split on Implied Certification Under FCA
Photo: Ryan Wick, Supreme Court Room, Taken December 29, 2009 – Creative Commons
In New York High Court Gives the Bronx Cheer to Insurers’ Pro Rata Allocation and Exhaustion Arguments, Pillsbury attorney Benjamin D. Tievsky discusses New York State Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc. The Court of Appeals accepted two certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court. As noted by Ben, “in a New York minute,” the Court of Appeals has “leveled the playing field by endorsing the ‘all sums’ and ‘vertical exhaustion’ approach to allocation advocated by a policyholder, at least as to policies containing ‘non-cumulation’ and ‘prior insurance’ provisions.” This ruling will be of interest to those who have encountered in New York barriers to insurance coverage where multiple policies over multiple policy terms are implicated, including, but not limited to, coverage for environmental or asbestos liabilities.
Roughly two weeks before annual National Stand-Down Week (May 2-6), New York’s Appellate Division, 
Second Department, in Vitale v. Astoria Energy II, LLC, affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a worker’s personal injury claim resulting from a fall at a construction site. Specifically, the Appellate Division held that Vitale failed to create an issue of fact as to whether an alleged dangerous condition on a construction project presented an elevation-related hazard in accordance with New York’s Scaffold Law – Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent elevation-related risks, and holds owners and contractors absolutely liable (without consideration of the worker’s comparative fault) in the event of a statutory violation that causes an elevation-related injury. Labor Law § 241(6) imposes vicarious (but not absolute) liability upon owners and contractors for a violation of the Industrial Code that causes a worker’s injury, but allows consideration of comparative negligence.
Join in the National Safety Stand-Down May 2-6, 2016. The purpose of the stand-down is to raise awareness about preventing fall hazards in the construction industry. Fatalities caused by falls from elevation continue to be a leading cause of death for or serious injury to construction workers. The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s (OSHA) goal is to reach 5 million workers, which is more than more than half of the construction workers in the U.S. To participate in the safety stand-down, a company can host a voluntary event to talk directly to employees about safety. The event doesn’t have to be formal. Companies are encouraged to adopt a stand-down plan approach that works best for their workplace, including, for example, safety activities such as safety equipment inspections, developing rescue plans, or discussing job specific hazards. It can even take the form of a “toolbox talk.”
Additional Source: Evento nacional destacará importancia de la prevención contra las caídas: primera causa de muerte y lesiones graves en industria de la construcción; Suggestions to Prepare for a Successful Stand-Down; Stand Up For Safety, Join in the Safety Stand-Down June 2 – 6
California Assembly Bill 2699 (Gonzalez) is a bill to watch if you are a home improvement contractor that 
installs solar energy systems or, for that matter, a contractor in California. AB 2699 would, among other things, require the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) to develop a “solar energy system disclosure document” and, in turn, require solar energy systems companies to provide this document to its customers prior to the completion of a sale, financing, or lease of a solar energy system.
AB 2699 would also require the CSLB to establish through regulation requirements for a contractor to maintain a blanket performance and payment bond for the purpose of solar installation work and, of particular note, even with this bond, the contractor will be subject to the down-payment restriction set forth in California Business & Professions Code § 7159.5(a)(8). If this bill is signed into law, this latter requirement will certainly translate into increased costs for contractors that currently do not have in place a blanket performance and payment bond. In turn, as a practical matter, this lIsley will translate into higher costs for consumers who want to install a solar system because such costs will trickle down to them. There may also be pressure put on others in the industry to reduce costs to make up for this increase in costs.
In late April, U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, in Concerned Pastors for Social Action, et al. v. Nick A. Kouri, et al., 
issued an interesting Order Regarding Disqualification. During an April 6, 2016 status conference in this matter, the Court to the parties “information regarding its consumption of water whose source was the Flint River, during the period of April 2014 to August 2014, a time period when its duty station was at the Flint Divisional courthouse.” On the same day, the Court issued an order instructing “the parties to file any objections pertaining to the Court’s continued participation in the matter.” At issue was Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides that any judge “of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
