Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Hears Construction Contract Dispute Over Who Owed Card‑Access Work
Summary
In AFCO Electric v. APC Development Group, counsel disputed whether division 26 in the public-bid documents clearly excluded division 28 card-access security work or whether the general contractor’s addendum and payment records put subcontractors on notice. The panel pressed Miller‑test and G.L. c.149 §44F questions; the court took the case under advisement.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in a construction‑contract appeal about whether card‑access security work belonged to the electrical subcontractor or the general contractor.
Appellant counsel (identified in the record as Alise Q) told the panel that the public‑bidding documents delineated electrical work under Division 26 and that General Laws chapter 149 §44F requires that electrical-subcontract scope be set out in a single section. Counsel said the Miller two‑step test (whether a specification omission is obvious) controls and argued that, as a matter of law, Division 26’s lack of a reference to Division 28 removes Division 28 work from the electrical subbid.
The panel pressed whether the Miller inquiry is partly factual (degree of obviousness) or legal. Appellant pointed to addenda and RFI history showing general contractors received clarifying material that placed responsibility for some work on the general contractor, while AFCO’s bid forms identified only Division 26. Appellant also explained that a post‑judgment motion for costs and a separate attorney‑fee motion were handled at the trial level and that a postjudgment motion for attorney fees was denied.
Respondent counsel Matthew Mitchell responded that the trial record (payment applications, schedule of values and other documents) shows AFCO billed for the card‑access work, and that witnesses’ testimony and documents supported the trial judge’s findings that the subcontractor knew or should have known about the scope being bid. Respondent also disputed an extinguishment argument tied to a settlement with the project architect (Haramman) and said the appellate record lacks controlling case law to support AFCO’s proposed rule.
The panel asked about the amount of statutory costs awarded and whether attorney‑fee awards were properly decided below; the record reflects a denial of a postjudgment attorney‑fee motion and some ambiguity about clerk assessment of statutory costs. The court took the matter under advisement.
