Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals Court Hears Dispute Over Whether Electrical Subcontractor Must Perform Excavation and Concrete Work Under Chapter 149 §44F
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in AMP Electrical Inc. v. WM Schultz Construction, docket number 24P941, over whether excavation and concrete duct‑bank work shown on revised electrical drawings became part of the electrical filed subbid under chapter 149 §44(f).
The Massachusetts Appeals Court, sitting in Boston before Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justices Peter Sachs and Andrew D'Angelo, heard argument in AMP Electrical Inc. v. WM Schultz Construction Inc. and another, docket number 24P941. The core issue is whether an electrical filed subbidder may be required to perform excavation and concrete work (the parties discussed figures in the tens of thousands of dollars) shown on electrical drawings and added by addenda shortly before bidding.
Appellant AMP Electrical, through counsel Bartheem Skirk, argued that the public‑bidding statute (chapter 149, section 44(f)) contemplates separate specification sections for each trade and that substantial excavation or concrete fabrication is not customary electrical work and therefore should be part of the general contractor’s scope.…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
