Traps for Construction Managers

Many experienced construction pros prefer working as construction managers rather than construction contractors. And for good reason. Compared to conventional construction contracting, construction management contracting offers major advantages: far less risk, very little working capital needed, no employees, no inventory, no payables, no warranties or callbacks, no investment, no liens. And it’s perfectly legal.

Better still, some states don’t even require CM contractors to be licensed. More on that later.

What’s different about CM contracting?  A construction manager is a consultant to the owner, pure and simple. The consultant's job is to protect the owner against high costs, delay, shoddy work and risk of loss. No one else on the site shares that agenda. The CM recruits contractors and subs, schedules work, orders materials, and tells the owner when it’s time to pay bills. All contracts are in the name of the owner. So what could go wrong?

Plenty. Here’s a short list.

Trap 1, Bad Contract

CM contracts are very different from construction contracts. There’s no set price for the work. Your contract has to define precisely what’s included in your responsibilities as CM. The only charge is your consulting fee. Usually that’s some percent of construction cost. But it could be a set cost per week or per month. For more on the CM contractor’s scope of work, click here.

CM contracts can include an estimated cost of completion – or set a maximum consulting fee. But that’s not a construction cost. CM contractors don’t guarantee construction costs.

For CM contracts that comply with both federal law and the law in your state, regardless of the type of construction, have a look at Construction Contract Writer. The trial version is free.

Trap 2, Mistakes in Execution

CM contracting is walking a fine line. Slip out of the CM consultant role and into construction contractor mode and you’re in trouble. A case decided earlier this month in Washington DC illustrates the point.

Karen and Charles Evans hired the C.A. Harrison Companies, LLC (CAH) to manage their home improvement project. CAH recommended another company to serve as prime contractor. Karen and Charles ratified that choice. So far, so good. But shortly after work started, the prime contractor quit. CAH didn’t mention any of this to Karen or Charles. Instead, CAH set out to finish the job as prime contractor. Eventually, the Evanses discovered what happened and terminated their agreement with CAH. When CAH sued for breach of contract, the Evanses counterclaimed, arguing that CAH had no enforceable construction contract and wasn’t licensed to do home improvement work. The Superior Court agreed, ordering CAH to refund $314,394.35 to Karen and Charles.

That’s the obvious case. But this theme has subtle variations. For example: Every significant job comes with changes. What does a CM do when the owner wants to change some construction detail? The thing not to do: authorize the change and sign a change order. That’s construction contracting. Instead, draft a change order for signature by both the owner and the contractor.

Another example: Any CM contractor who writes a check to cover job site labor or material costs is courting trouble.

Trap 3, Check Your License

Some states (CA, DC, TN, NY, VA) have decided that CM consultants need a contractor’s license. Other states (MT) have gone the other way, no license is required. Louisiana went half way: CM consultants aren’t construction contractors but have to offer the same warranty that’s required for construction contractors. In other states, the issue is still open. My guess: Construction is a heavily regulated industry. States aren’t going to let clever operators slip under the net by claiming to be consultants rather than contractors. Eventually, most states will task CM consultants with meeting requirements set for conventional prime contractors. For residential work, that will include giving all the notices and making all the disclosures required in residential construction contracts. But this hasn't happened yet. So CM contractors in most states still have plenty of wiggle room.

If you need a good "hands on" guide to CM contracting, have a look at the book Paper Contracting. A PDF download is available for less than $30.

Construction Management Contracting in Montana

Dr. Gary Jystad practiced family medicine and surgery for over 50 years in Montana. In 1991, he built a log home on Flathead Lake in Rollins, MT, the “dream home” of his wife Mary Ellen. A tragic fire in 2016 devastated the main building, leaving the garage and guest house damaged but not destroyed.

In February 2017, Dr. Jystad signed a contract with Flathead Management Partners (FMP) to oversee reconstruction. FMP agreed to “coordinate and facilitate” remediation and “work at the exclusive direction of Dr. Jystad”. FMP didn’t plan to do any work with FMP crews.

Under the contract, FMP would:

• Assist Dr. Jystad in selecting an appropriate design,
• Select and contract with a general contractor to execute that work,
• Supervise & coordinate the work and logistics of designers, contractors, vendors, permits and . . . all else necessary to complete the agreed upon scope of work in a timely manner and within an agreed upon budget.

If you’ve been in construction for a while, you probably recognize this as a fixed-price construction management (CM) contract.

Work got off to a good start. FMP and Dr. Jystad worked well together. FMP pulled the permits and helped Dr. Jystad select a general contractor. Work started on the main house. But on June 10, 2017 there was a falling out. Dr. Jystad, his son Robert and his daughter Sharon met with FMP. The meeting didn’t go well. At the end of the conference, FMP was told that their contract was "null and void and terminated." That didn’t set well with FMP. They stopped work and filed a construction lien. Later FMP filed suit against Dr. Jystad, asking foreclosure of their lien and claiming damages for breach of contract.

To his point, it was a simple contract dispute. When an owner breaches an agreement, the contractor is entitled to damages, usually loss of profit. In this case, FMP claimed those profits would have been $191,876. And that was the award of the trial court.

In the Montana Supreme Court

Dr. Jystad’s appeal made a simple point. The contract with FMP was not enforceable under Montana Code § 28-2-2201. Since April of 2009, Montana contracts for construction of a new residence “between a general contractor and an owner” have to disclose in writing:

• The contractor’s liability and workers’ comp coverage,
• The billing cycle and payment schedule,
• How change orders will be handled,
• A schedule of inspections and tests,
• That the owner can pay for other tests and inspections;
• The general contractor’s one-year warranty.

FMP’s contract covered none of this. And the Montana Supreme Court has already ruled that an oral contract for construction of a new home that lacked these disclosures was void under § 28-2-2201.

You Decide

Was FMP a general contractor under Montana law? If so, FMP’s award of $191,876 gets wiped out.

Before you decide, consider this. Several states have wrestled with this issue: Is a construction management contractor like FMP a “construction contractor” under state law? Or was FMP just a consultant?

This isn’t a trivial issue. There’s plenty at stake here. Construction management contracting (consulting) is now big business, and for good reason. Most states require that general contractors be either registered or licensed. Consultants need only a business license.

Two states have weighed in on this issue:

Since January 2014, California Business & Professions Code § 7026.1 has made it clear. Anyone who bids construction work or manages construction projects is a “contractor” and has to be licensed.

Just last week, a Louisiana appellate court decided that a “job coordinator” on a residential project was required to meet warranty standards imposed on general contractors in Louisiana. (Palermo v. Homes & More, Inc.)

Expect other states to resolve this issue in the next few years. My guess is that nearly all states will decide that CM consultants are “general contractors” and carry all the burdens and benefits that go with the title.

So, what did the Montana Supreme Court decide? Under Montana law, a construction management contractor is not a “general contractor” and doesn’t have to comply with § 28-2-2201. FMP gets to keep their $191,876. (Flathead Management Partners v. Jystad, decided December 17, 2019).

My advice: Don’t expect the FMP v. Jystad decision to stand for very long. It opens a gaping loophole in Montana construction contracting law. The Montana legislature is likely to consider a change to § 28-2-2201 at the next session. To be safe, give the notices required of construction contractors, even if all you do is consulting. Staying legal is quick and easy with Montana Construction Contract Writer. The trial version is free.

If you’re new to construction management contracting, Paper Contracting by Mitchell & Moselle is the best hands-on guide available.

Construction Contractor or Consultant?

Change is inevitable, even in the construction industry. One of those changes is construction consulting, sometimes called CM (construction management) consulting – or CM for short.

Veteran builders will remember a time when residential contractors did most framing and finishing with their own crews. Today, a residential contractor with payroll is the exception. Most let subs handle nearly all work.

CM consulting takes this trend one step beyond. A CM contractor is a consultant to the owner, pure and simple. No subcontractors. No payroll. No payroll taxes. No risk. The CM recruits contractors and subs, schedules the work, orders materials, supervises the job and tells the owner when it’s time to pay bills. But all decisions and contracts are in the name of the owner. Simple and easy.

Now the Hard Part

Is a CM consultant a “contractor” for licensing and contracting purposes? Only a few states have decided the issue. Washington D.C. Code of Municipal Regulations § 17-3905.1 to § 17-3905.14 requires that CM consultants comply with standards set for general contractors. Tennessee (Lowrey v. Tritan Group Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60312) and New York (Liberty Management & Construction v. Wasserman, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4408) are the same. In nearly all other states, whether a CM consultant is a contractor is anybody’s guess. So if there’s no answer, you might ask, “Why should I care?”

Here’s why. Where contractors are licensed, an unlicensed contractor has no right to collect. So a CM with no contracting license might not be able to collect. That gets the attention of anyone working as a CM. But it’s only the beginning. A consultant needs only an employment contract – or no written contract at all. If your state considers CM consultants to be contractors, every CM agreement has to include the notices and disclosures required in construction contacts – up to 18 pages of fine print in some states. Without those notices and disclosures, the CM contract is probably void.

Maybe you’re beginning to understand the problem. Use the CM loophole and you risk getting pinched if the loophole closes without warning.

States have an interest here. They’re not going to let the increasing popularity of CM consulting knock state regulation of contractors into a cocked hat. California is an example. A March 2009 appellate decision (172 Cal. App. 4th 939) allowed CM consultant Fifth Day to collect from Bolotin like any contractor even though Fifth Day did not have a contracting license. To stop an end-run around licensing law, the California legislature clawed back. Last month, Governor Jerry Brown approved a revision of California Business and Professions Code § 7026. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2013. The new definition of “contractor” includes what every CM consultant does:

(A) Provides or oversees a bid for a construction project.

(B) Arranges for and sets up work schedules for contractors and subcontractors and maintains oversight of a construction project.

That settles it, at least in California and at least for home improvement work. Starting January 1, 2013, CM consultants in California need a contracting license and have to work under a legal construction contract. Expect other states to fall into line one by one.

Protect Yourself

The AIA and CMAA publish model CM contracts. Neither includes the notices and disclosures required by state and federal law. That makes these model contracts illegal for most jobs in most states. Construction Contract Writer drafts CM contracts that comply with both federal law and the law in your state, regardless of the type of construction – residential, commercial or home improvement.

 

Do CM Contractors Need a License?

Last month I listed advantages of construction management (CM) contracting over traditional general contracting. For example, construction contracting is a highly regulated occupation – liens, payments, codes, inspections, bonding, insurance, etc. CM contractors avoid most of these headaches. But if your state requires construction contractors to be licensed, do CM contractors need a license?

That’s a very good question. Remember that CM contractors are consultants. They don’t install materials and don’t have subcontractors. Why would they need a license?

Don’t answer that question before looking carefully at the licensing statute in your state. Usually the term construction contractor is defined very precisely. Sometimes that definition includes construction management and sometimes it doesn’t. For example, Washington D.C. Code of Municipal Regulations § 17-3999 requires that construction managers comply with all standards that apply to general contractors. The same is true in Virginia. VA Code Ann, § 54.1-1100.

Licensing statutes in other states don’t mention construction management. That leaves the issue open for courts to decide. Tennessee courts have decided that CM contractors need a license (Lowrey v. Tritan Group Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60312). The same is true in New York (Liberty Management & Construction v. Wasserman, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4408).

California courts have decided (at least for now) that CM contractors don’t need a contracting license. If you’re interested, the case is The Fifth Day, LLC v. Bolotin. The case was decided in March of 2009 by a court split 2 to 1 and includes a well-reasoned dissent. Expect the Bolotin decision to be overruled the first time a homeowner brings suit against an unlicensed CM home improvement contractor.

In other states where general contractors need a license, the licensing of CM contractors will remain an open question until the legislature speaks or a court has to decide the issue.

Even if your state doesn’t require a license, I think there are at least three reasons why a CM contractor should have the same license that a general contractor needs. First, having the appropriate license is reassuring to everyone concerned – the owner, trade contractors, suppliers, lenders and design professionals. Second, I believe courts and legislatures are going to recognize the growing popularity of CM contracting and close any loophole that permits CM contractors to work without a license. You don’t want to be caught in that loophole just when the loophole gets plugged. Finally, the penalty for operating without a license is severe. In many jurisdictions, an unlicensed contractor has no right to collect and no lien rights. Don’t take that risk.

Construction Contract Writer drafts CM contracts that comply with both federal law and the law in your state, regardless of the type of construction – residential, commercial or home improvement. The trial version is free.