BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 552


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 6, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          552 (O'Donnell) - As Amended April 27, 2015


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Accountability and             |Vote:|9 - 0        |
          |Committee:   |Administrative Review          |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |Judiciary                      |     |10 - 0       |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:


          This bill requires that any state or local public works  
          contract, entered into after January 1, 2016, and containing a  
          clause requiring a contractor to be responsible for  
          consequential damages is not enforceable unless the damages are  








                                                                     AB 552


                                                                    Page  2





          for a set amount identified in the contract.


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          No likely state fiscal impact, as it appears consequential  
          damages clauses are not used in state contracts.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Background. When a breach of contract delays completion of a  
            construction project, the non-breaching party may recover  
            consequential damages (CDs) from the breaching party for any  
            losses indirectly caused by the breach and reasonably  
            foreseeable at the time the contract was made. Because the  
            indirect consequences of delay are potentially unlimited and  
            difficult to prove, construction contracts often instead  
            contain a liquidated damage (LD) provision to limit liability  
            for and make it easier for all parties, as well as sureties,  
            to assess risk. State law requires state construction  
            contracts to contain an LD provision that specifies a fixed  
            sum which the contractor must pay for each day beyond the  
            contracted completion date. 


            While LD provisions are common in construction contracts, CD  
            provisions are relatively rare, and if they exist at all, it  
            is often to specify that there is "no liability" for CDs.   
            Indeed LD clauses for delay are often intended as a substitute  
            for difficult to prove CDs resulting from delay.  Recently,  
            however, the author and sponsor (Construction Employers  
            Association) assert some public agencies have included CD  
            clauses in contracts that make the contractor liable for  
            potentially unlimited consequential damages, with no set  
            amount or even a range of amounts, even though these same  
            contracts may contain LD clauses requiring the contractor to a  








                                                                     AB 552


                                                                    Page  3





            pay a fixed daily amount for delays. 


            While CD clauses in public contracts are still not the norm,  
            such clauses are common enough that surety bonders have  
            informed contractors and public agencies that they cannot  
            underwrite public contracts with open-ended CD clauses, or can  
            only provide bonds at higher prices.  In response to such  
            concerns, some public agencies have already removed open-ended  
            CD clauses from all of their contracts, but apparently several  
            have not.  


          2)Purpose. This bill provides that if a public contract contains  
            a clause making the contractor liable for CDs, the amount  
            cannot be open-ended, i.e. the damages must be liquidated to a  
            set amount and identified in the contract. It is not the  
            author's or sponsor's intent, however, that CDs can only be  
            recovered if they are included in the contract and liquidated.  
            If a public agency opts not to include a CD clause, it could  
            still recover if it could show that the CDs were caused by a  
            contract breach and were reasonably foreseeable at the time  
            the contract was entered into.


          Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081