CONSTRUCTION LAW

A not uncommon situaon is where the construcon contract between the contractor and

the subcontractor contains an arbitraon clause; however, the contractor’s payment bond

does not contain an arbitraon provision. The subcontractor is then faced with having

to sue the surety in court in order to comply with the limitaon of acons in the bond,

usually one year, and/or the statute of limitaons on bonds in the state where the project

is located, and then move the court to stay the court acon pending the compleon of the

arbitraon.

Even then, if the contractor turns out to be insolvent aer the arbitraon is over and

unable to pay the award, the subcontractor may be faced with religang the underlying

arbitraon against the surety, as the surety may take the posion that the award of the arbitraon panel is not

binding on it.

This same scenario arises in the context of owner and contractor disputes where the construcon contract calls for

arbitraon and the contractor’s performance bond does not.

www.eckertseamans.com

Pracce pointer: Vouching in the surety

connued on page 2

connued on page 3

Page 1

Pracce pointer: Vouching in

the surety

Brown v. City of Oil City:

The potenal expansion of

contractor liability to third

pares for defecve work

Page 4

A praccal guide to draing

construcon contracts: Essenal

ps and key clauses

Page 6

The rst major revision to

the Davis-Bacon Act in 40

years—what it means for the

construcon industry

Page 7

Building opportunies for

diverse businesses in the

construcon industry

Page 8

Construcon Law Group News

BOSTON, MA • BUFFALO, NY • CHARLESTON, WV • HARRISBURG, PA • HARTFORD, CT • NEWARK, NJ • PHILADELPHIA, PA

PITTSBURGH, PA • PRINCETON, NJ • PROVIDENCE, RI • RICHMOND, VA • TROY, MI • WASHINGTON, DC • WHITE PLAINS, NY • WILMINGTON, DE

In This Issue…

CONSTRUCTION LAW

Fall 2023

17th Year of Publicaon!

Prior to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. City of Oil City, a split

existed between the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court as to whether an out-

of-possession contractor could be held liable to a third party for a dangerous condion

that it created on a property if the condion was patent or obvious. The disagreement

between the courts stemmed from conicng interpretaons of comment c to Secon

385 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

In Gilbert v. Consolidated Rail Corp., a wrongful death suit was brought against Consolidated

Rail Corporaon, alleging that an individual was killed as a result of a dangerous condion

created by the defecve design of a track crossing Conrail erected for the Southeastern

Pennsylvania Transit Authority. [Gilbert v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 623 A.2d 873, 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 1993).] Relying

Brown v. City of Oil City: The potenal expansion of contractor liability

to third pares for defecve work

Scott D. Cessar

Benjamin S. Mantica

What then should counsel for the subcontractor,

and/or the owner depending on the context, do to

avoid having to repeat the arbitraon?

At the outset, counsel should be sure to take

steps to comply with the bond’s limitaon of

acons and the statute of limitaons of the

state where the project is located. The ling of

an acon and moving to stay the acon is the

most prudent course, as tolling agreements with

surees may not be enforceable on public projects

in all states.

Once having led the acon and moving to stay

it, what steps should counsel take to address

the surety claiming later that the award of the

arbitraon panel is not outcome determinave

based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel?

The recent Pennsylvania appellate court case

of Eastern Steel Construcon, Inc. v. Internaonal

Fidelity Insurance Company provides useful

guidance.

In Eastern Steel, a payment bond surety contested

that the underlying arbitraon award in favor of

the subcontractor—by default—should be given

collateral estoppel eect in the bond acon in

court. The Pennsylvania appellate court rejected

that argument, holding that, because the surety

was given every opportunity to defend itself in the

arbitraon, “the arbitraon award was conclusive

and binding” on the surety.

Reading into the lessons of Eastern Steel,

aorneys whose clients are counng on a

surety for nancial protecon if the principal

becomes insolvent aer the arbitraon should

consistently and consciously keep the surety

apprised throughout the arbitraon proceedings

by papering the record. This starts with inving

the surety to parcipate in the arbitraon process,

sending to the surety on a consistent basis all

arbitraon lings, including expert reports and

interim panel orders. Also, the owner should

inform the surety of the dates of the hearings and

invite it to aend and parcipate and/or observe.

The owner should also ask the surety if it wants to

have the arbitraon proceedings transcribed. All

post-hearing submissions should be shared with

the surety and, of course, also the award of the

panel.

In eect, counsel is “vouching” the surety into the

arbitraon in order to handcu the surety from

later claiming that the arbitraon award is not

binding and aempng to religate the case.

Sco D. Cessar may be reached at

scessar@eckertseamans.com

Pracce pointer: Vouching in the surety

connued from page 1

CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORT

on comment c to Secon 385, the trial court

dismissed the complaint and held that a contractor

who is out of possession of property cannot

be held liable for a dangerous condion that it

created on the property unless the condion is

undiscoverable or latent. [Id.]

On appeal however, the Commonwealth Court

disagreed with the trial court’s interpretaon

of comment c and permied the wrongful

death acon to proceed. The Court held that

Secon 385 read in conjuncon with comment

c expanded a contractor’s potenal liability for

a dangerous condion that it created on the

property. [Id. at 875.]

Disagreeing with the Commonwealth Court’s

decision in Gilbert, the Superior Court came to

the opposite conclusion in Gresik v. Pa. Partners,

L.P. In Gresik, a negligence acon was brought

against the prior owner of a steel plant for

modicaons they made while they owned the

plant. The prior owner had removed a drawbridge

that was designed to allow employees to escape

in the event molten steel breached the sides of

the furnace. The subsequent owner was aware

of the modicaon prior to the sale. Aer the

sale, one employee was injured and one was

killed aer they were unable to escape via the

drawbridge following an explosive rupture.

[Gresik v. Pa. Partners, L.P., 989 A.2d 344, 347 (Pa.

Super. Ct. 2009).] Based on their interpretaon

of comment c to Secon 385, the Superior Court

sustained the trial court’s entry of summary

judgment. The Superior Court determined that

as a precondion for establishing liability under

Secon 385, a plain must show that the

danger was one unlikely to be discovered by the

possessor or those who come upon the land with

the possessor’s consent. [Id. at 351.] Therefore,

because the new owner of the steel plant knew

about the removal of the drawbridge, the Superior

Court concluded that the trial court did not err in

dismissing the complaint. [Id.]

The split between the Commonwealth Court

and the Superior Court was recently resolved by

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Brown v. City

of Oil City. In Brown, the City of Oil City hired

mulple contractors to design and build new

concrete stairs leading to the entrance of the Oil

City Library. The stairs were completed in 2011

and almost immediately began to deteriorate.

[Brown v. City of Oil City, 294 A.3d 413, 419 (Pa.

2023).] Despite several complaints about the

deteriorang condion of the concrete stairs

between 2012 and 2015, neither the city nor the

contractors made any eort to repair the stairs,

or to warn the public about their dangerous

condion. [Id.] On November 23, 2015, Kathryn

Brown tripped and fell on the stairs and later died

from a traumac head injury suered as a result

of the fall. [Id.]

Consequently, David Brown on behalf of himself

and his wife’s estate brought a wrongful death

acon against the City of Oil City and the

contractors responsible for erecng the stairs.

[Id.] Following discovery, however, the contractors

led for summary judgment, asserng that they

owed no duty to third persons as they were not

in possession of the property when Brown was

injured. [Id. at 420.] Cing the Superior Court’s

decision in Gresik, the trial court determined

that the contractor’s liability was limited to only

those situaons where the contractor created a

dangerous defect that the possessor was unlikely

to discover. [Id.] Accordingly, the trial court

entered summary judgment on behalf of the

contractors.

Aer Brown reached a selement with Oil City for

the maximum amount authorized by the Polical

Subdivision Tort Claims Act, he appealed the trial

court’s decision to the Commonwealth Court. [Id.

at 421.] Cing their previous decision in Gilbert,

the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial

court’s decision and concluded that although Oil

City had knowledge of the defecve nature of the

stairs, it did not relieve the contractors of liability

under Secon 385. [Id. at 422.]

The contractors appealed, and the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court considered whether an out-of-

possession contractor can be subject to liability

under Secon 385 of the Restatement of Torts

for injuries to third pares where the dangerous

condion of the structure is well known to the

possessors of land. [Id. at 422-23.]

Ulmately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

decided that a contractor’s liability under Secon

385 does not hinge on whether the defecve

condion it caused is latent or patent; rather,

comment c imposes liability on contractors to

third persons for all defecve structures on land

that they are responsible for creang through

their work. [Id. at 433-34.]

In sum, aer the Court’s decision in Brown v.

Oil City, it is crical that contractors be aware

that they may be suscepble to claims well

aer a possessor of land has accepted their

work, regardless of whether a defect is obvious.

Consequently, it is crical that a contractor

communicate with the property owner and be

proacve about coordinang a plan to correct any

deciencies related to their work.

Benjamin S. Manca may be reached at bmanca@

eckertseamans.com

Brown v. City of Oil City: The potenal expansion of contractor liability to third pares

for defecve work

connued from page 1

‘‘

[I]t is crical that contractors be aware that they

may be suscepble to claims well aer a possessor

of land has accepted their work and regardless of

whether a defect is obvious.

’’

A praccal guide to draing construcon contracts: Essenal ps and key clauses

Highlights from the Construcon group’s

presentaon at the Eckert Seamans’ August 2023

Joel Lennen Legal Primer by David Meredith and

Gerard Hornby

Earlier this year, the Construcon group’s David

Meredith and Gerard Hornby presented at the

rm’s annual Connuing Legal Educaon event.

The focus of their presentaon was on essenal

ps and key clauses to look out for in draing

construcon contracts, the highlights of which are

below.

Contract draing and agreement is a push-and-

pull process. Everyone wants to pass down risk,

limit risk, or blame someone else. A major part

of the negoated contract is risk control. The

following six clauses should always be negoated

as required to control risk:

Pay If Paid/Pay When Paid Clauses shi the risk

of non-payment to subcontractors or suppliers

even though they may not have control over the

circumstances that lead to non-payment. These

are helpful for owners and general contractors

while liming the rights of subcontractors and

suppliers.

Subcontractors and suppliers should do their best

to avoid pay if paid and pay when paid clauses.

At a minimum, subcontractors and suppliers

should aempt to negoate language that

allows the contractor to withhold payment only

if the owner’s withholding of payment from the

contractor is related to the performance of the

subcontractor or supplier.

Indemnity Clauses provide that one party (the

indemnifying party) will compensate the other

party (the indemnied party) for any losses or

damages that may arise from a parcular event

or circumstance. Many mes, these clauses will

provide that a contractor or subcontractor will

indemnify the owner and design professionals

from everything and anything that could go wrong

on the project, from personal injury to property

damage to environmental issues to economic

damages.

As a general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier,

you should only agree to indemnify pares when

you caused or parcipated in the cause of the

Gerard Hornby David Meredith

CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORT

loss. This means only indemnify to the percenle

extent your conduct was the proximate cause of

the loss and limit your indemnicaon obligaons

to property damage and/or personal injury. As an

owner, do not agree to language providing that

an indemnifying party is only liable in the event of

“sole” negligence.

Liquidated Damages provisions specify a

predetermined amount of money that must be

paid as damages if one party fails to meet certain

contractual requirements. These clauses can

provide for damages for late compleon at the

end of the job, or on milestones, or even for the

failure of the completed project to meet specied

performance criteria.

A well-draed clause eliminates the oponal

nature of the clause, species the raonale for

liquidang damages, idenes the types of losses

to be liquidated (and not to be liquidated), and

claries the events that will (and will not) trigger

the clause. This can signicantly reduce the types

of ligaon that commonly aend liquidated

damages clauses. As an owner seeking to include

a liquidated damages provision, have the engineer

or architect generate a memorandum indicang

how the liquidated damages were calculated.

Consider also including language indicang that

damages will be dicult to ascertain and that

the liquidated damages are a fair and reasonable

esmate of likely damages. As a contractor

negoang a liquidated damages provision,

provide that liquidated damages are the exclusive

damages recoverable in the event of a delay or

performance issue. Another opon is to negoate

a cap on all damages based on a percentage of the

contract value.

No Damages for Delay Clauses essenally

provide that, if there is a delay not caused by

you, you get more me, but not more money. A

contractor negoang a no damages for delay

provision should seek to limit applicaon of the

provision to specically contemplated events of

delay, and also negoate to provide for some

objecve means to calculate damages based on a

reasonable per diem or percentage that es into

the original bid esmated costs for eld and home

oce overhead. Negoate to limit your right to

recover to direct, provable costs, such as project

supervision, jobsite equipment, and other project-

specic costs rather than no damages at all. As an

owner, consider avoiding overly broad clauses, as

they could lead to inated inial pricing, excess

conngency, claims for addional costs outside

of delay, or a contractor default. If the owner

acvely interferes with the contractor’s ability to

perform its contractual dues, these clauses can

be challenged as unenforceable.

Incorporaon by Reference/Flow Down Clauses

in a subcontract incorporate the general contract

by reference and bind the subcontractor to the

general contractor to the same extent the general

contractor is bound to the owner. Subcontractors

oen take pains to negoate changes to the

subcontract, but then ignore the fact that all of

those contractual “gains” may well be trumped

by the fact that the terms of the prime contract—

equally as onerous and one-sided—sll govern

because of this quiet, silent rogue.

As a contractor or subcontractor, at a minimum,

make sure you have everything you are

agreeing to by reference. Do you have all of the

documents incorporated by reference? What

do the documents say? How do they aect the

risk? If possible, negoate that the terms of your

contract take precedence over whatever is being

referenced OR negoate a reciprocal ow down

provision where the general contractor assumes

to the subcontractor the obligaons that the

owner owes to the general contractor. From the

perspecve of the owner, collaborate and ensure

that all required documents are easily accessible

to downstream enes.

Material Escalaon Clauses are typically

used where there is a lump sum/xed fee or

guaranteed maximum price contract, especially

where the duraon of a construcon project

is long and complex, so that there can be an

adjustment to the price to be paid by the owner if

there are sharp increases in the price of materials

or labor.

There are several key factors to consider when

negoang a material escalaon clause. The

provisions generally require that the pares

must idenfy the materials that are ancipated

to have price uctuaons during the course of

construcon. Aer idencaon, pares will

agree to the “baseline price” for the materials.

Material escalaon clauses can be “cost-based”

or “index-based.” Index-based clauses are linked

to published material cost indexes such as the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Stascs. There may also

be limits as to the maximum adjustment amount,

such as a 10% increase limit. Contractors may

include language intended to limit their liability for

delays in the delivery of materials.

The boom line is that typical risk avoidance

techniques and unfavorable contract terms are

here to stay. However, if recognized and dealt

with during the negoaon of the contract, these

terms—and any potenal risk exposure—can and

should be managed.

Gerard Hornby may be reached at ghornby@

eckertseamans.com

David Meredith may be reached at dmeredith@

eckertseamans.com

‘‘

As a general contractor, subcontractor, or

supplier, you should only agree to indemnify

pares when you caused or parcipated in

the cause of the loss.

’’

The Davis-Bacon

Act (DBA) and all

Davis-Bacon Related

Acts (DBRAs) apply

to contractors and

subcontractors

performing on federally

funded projects for

the construcon,

alteraon, or repair of

public buildings or public works. More specically,

the DBA and the DBRAs require employers

working on these projects to pay their employees

no less than the locally prevailing wages for

corresponding work on similar projects in the area.

While the DBA was passed in 1931, examples

of DBRAs include the 2022 Inaon Reducon

Act, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs

Act (most commonly known as the Biparsan

Infrastructure Law), the 1974 Housing and

Community Development Act, the 1956 Federal-

Aid Highway Acts, and the 1948 Federal Water

Polluon Control Act. In other words, if you’re

awarded a federal construcon contract funded

by one of these laws, then you’ll have to abide

by the DBA’s prevailing wage laws. These laws

cover a lot of ground, meaning the prospect of

compliance challenges for contractors has only

increased over the years.

The promulgaon of rules and regulaons

surrounding the DBA and DBRAs is governed by

the Department of Labor (DOL). The last major

revision of the federal regulaons under the

DBA was in 1983, and these rules subsequently

remained essenally unchanged for four decades.

But now, the DOL, for the rst me since the

Reagan Administraon, has published a major

comprehensive regulatory review of how the DBA

is administered. On August 8, 2023, the DOL

published its Final Rule Updang the Davis-Bacon

and Related Acts Regulaons. At over 800 pages,

the Final Rule is lengthy. It took eect on October

23, 2023, and a summary of the key changes and

codicaons of current guidance as they apply to

contractors is outlined below:

• “Building or work” now includes solar panels,

wind turbines, broadband installaon, and

installaon of electric car chargers on the non-

exhausve list of construcon acvies.

• “Construcon, prosecuon, compleon, or

repair” received addional language idenfying

the ve types of acvies that qualify as

“covered transportaon” under Davis-Bacon.

• The Final Rule states that where a signicant

poron of the building or work is constructed

at a secondary construcon site specically for

The rst major revision to the Davis-Bacon Act in 40 years—what it means

for the construcon industry

Gerard Hornby

CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORT

Federal, state, and local governments have

recognized that businesses, which people of

diverse backgrounds own and operate, play a

crucial role in contribung to economic growth

and development, fostering innovaon and

compeon, and advancing important social aims.

They, therefore, have created programs that give

diversely owned businesses certain advantages

with respect to procurements contracts, training,

and nancing. Oenmes, business owners

of diverse backgrounds are unaware of these

opportunies, especially with relaon to formal

cercaon as a qualicaon of how to qualify for

them; that is, unl now. Using the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania as an example, we will explain

the benets that businesses in the construcon

industry can receive as Small Diverse Businesses

(SDBs) and how they can qualify as SDBs.

Once a business obtains status as a SDB, it can

take advantage of the following benets:

• Access to exclusive

contracng and

procurement

opportunies within

the Commonwealth,

oering signicant

potenal for business

growth and prot.

• Qualifying for

subcontracts under

the Small Diverse

Business Program for Low Bid Capital

Construcon Projects. Under this program, on

larger projects with an esmated value above

$300,000 (referred to as “Capital Projects”),

the Commonwealth establishes Minimum

Parcipaon Levels (MPLs) requiring Prime

Contractors to use SDBs for certain percentages

of the work.

• An array of tailored-made programs and

resources, such as the Mentor-Protégé Program.

Through this iniave, SDBs receive guidance

and support from seasoned professionals to

compete for non-highway capital construcon,

supplies, and services procurement

opportunies, which enhances their ability to

secure these engagements.

• The opportunity to gain recognion for the

purposes of similar programs and iniaves at

the federal level and in other states.

• Eligibility for the Small Diverse Business Capital

Access Program, managed by the Pennsylvania

Industrial Development Authority (PIDA). This

program, oered through the Pennsylvania

Department of Community and Economic

Development and administered by PIDA,

provides low-interest loans and lines of credit

to small diverse businesses that commit to

creang and retaining full-me jobs within

Pennsylvania. Loan applicaons are packaged

and underwrien by a network of cered

economic development organizaons that

partner with PIDA to administer the program.

To become an SDB, a business must sasfy

several legal and regulatory threshold

requirements. The law requires the business to:

1. Be duly registered in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania;

2. Operate legally within the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania;

3. Employ no more than 100 full-me equivalent

employees;

4. Maintain gross revenues under $38.5 million;

5. Not be a dominant force within an industry;

and

6. Be owned (e.g., 51% or more) by a person that

idenes as diverse.

connued on page 8

Derek Illar G. Vincent Tese Danielle Mundekis

the DBA project, then that work will be covered

by the DBA (contrast this with secondary sites

that manufacture or construct materials for sale

to the general public). The prior version of the

regulaon only applied DBA rules to secondary

sites that were established specically for a DBA

project.

• The Rule adopts a three-pronged criteria in

order to dene what a “material supplier” is

and is therefore not subject to the DBA: (1) the

material supplier’s work on the contract must be

limited to the supply of materials or equipment,

which may include pickup and delivery; (2) the

material supplier’s facilies being used for the

contract either must have been established

before opening of bids or, if it was established

aer bid opening, may not be dedicated

exclusively to the performance of a covered

contract; and (3) the material supplier’s facility

manufacturing the materials or equipment may

not be located on the primary or secondary

construcon site.

• The Rule denes the term “prime contractor” to

include controlling shareholders, joint venture

members, and anyone who has been delegated

responsibility for overseeing all or substanally

all of the construcon under the prime contract.

• The Final Rule claries that upper-er

contractors can be held responsible for a lower-

ered subcontractor’s DBA violaons.

• The Rule authorizes the DOL to require

contractors to pay back wages to workers on

DBA contracts even when the contracng

agency failed to include a DBA contract clause

or wage determinaon in the contract.

On the surface, these changes may appear

minor and years away from directly aecng any

parcular project. But in reality, under the Final

Rule, compliance has grown more complicated;

wages and costs will likely rise, and more risk has

shied onto contractors. Landmark Congressional

acts like the Inaon Reducon Act and Biparsan

Infrastructure Law are good for contactors and

will bring about a lot of projects in years to

come, but this means the prospect of compliance

challenges has only increased. Contractors

intending to perform DBA-covered projects are

advised to review these new requirements and

contact their aorneys with any quesons.

Gerard Hornby may be reached at

ghornby@eckertseamans.com

Building opportunies for diverse businesses in the construcon industry

The informaon in this publicaon is for the purpose of informing and educang our clients about various aspects of the law and is not intended to be used as legal advice.

eckertseamans.com

Newark, NJ

973.855.4700

Philadelphia, PA

215.851.8400

Pisburgh, PA

412.566.6000

Princeton, NJ

609.392.2100

Providence, RI

401.272.1108

Richmond, VA

804.788.7740

Troy, MI

248.526.0571

Washington, DC

202.659.6600

White Plains, NY

914.949.2909

Wilmington, DE

302.574.7400

Boston, MA

617.342.6800

Bualo, NY

716.835.0240

Charleston, WV

304.720.5533

Harrisburg, PA

717.237.6000

Harord, CT

860.249.7148

Construcon

Law Group

NEWS

Client Success

Pisburgh-based Member Tim Grieco and

associate Gerard Hornby recently secured

a summary judgment ruling dismissing a

developer’s decient design claim in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Our client, an architect, brought suit against a

Philadelphia-based real estate developer relang

to architectural services performed by the

architect but for which it was not paid. These

plans were to be used for the construcon of a

mixed-use high-rise in downtown Philadelphia.

The defendant developer retaliated with wide-

reaching counterclaims for breach of contract,

torous interference, and unjust enrichment,

claiming that plain did not complete the

work, and the work that was completed was

substandard. In sum, these counterclaims totaled

in excess of $2 million.

Aer considerable me and eort veng these

counterclaims through discovery, the plain

moved for summary judgment in December

2022, arguing that the counterclaims were

factually and legally unsupported.

The Court agreed with the plain and, in a

June 30, 2023, order and opinion, dismissed the

counterclaims in their enrety. In addion, the

Court denied the defendant’s own moon for

paral summary judgment on the plain’s claim

for the lost prots it expected to earn on the

project. A trial on the architect’s claim is to be

scheduled in 2024.

Construcon Group Accolades

Eckert Seamans’ Construcon pracce group

was ranked by Best Law Firms

2024 as a

Naonally recognized pracce in the area of

Ligaon – Construcon.

Five Eckert Seamans aorneys were named

among The Best Lawyers in America

for

2024 in the area of Ligaon – Construcon,

including Sco D. Cessar, F. Timothy Grieco,

David M. McGlone, Bridget E. Montgomery,

and Christopher R. Opalinski. Chris Opalinski

was also named 2024 “Lawyer of the Year” for

Ligaon – Construcon in Pisburgh.

The group was also recognized in the Chambers

& Partners USA 2023 Guide as a leading rm in

Pennsylvania for Construcon law and by The

Legal 500 as a leading law rm for Construcon

naonwide in 2023.

If a business meets these parameters, it can

embark on the process of obtaining cercaon

as a diverse business. To do so, the owner(s) of

the business will need to provide informaon

and documentaon to substanate that he/she/

they is/are a member of a diverse populaon.

For the purposes of cercaon, the diverse

populaons include women, Black people, people

who are disabled, veterans, and LGBTQ+. The

Pennsylvania Department of General Services

and the Bureau of Diversity, Inclusion, & Small

Business Opportunies validates the status of

small diverse businesses via cercaons from

accredited third-party enes. Examples of these

third-party enes are: the Naonal Minority

Supplier Development Council, the Women’s

Business Enterprise Naonal Council, the U.S.

Small Business Administraon 8(a) Program, the

U.S. Department of Veteran Aairs, the U.S.

Business Leadership Network, and the Naonal

Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

Once an enty successfully completes the small

business cercaon process, it will receive

conrmaon of its status, which will enable it to

compete for contracts with the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania maintains an online portal that

permits SDBs to idenfy all the commercial

opportunies that are available to them.

Whether you are a prime contractor, a specialty-

service company (e.g., electrical, masonry, agging

and safety, etc.), or a supplier of raw materials, the

SDB Program aords you numerous opportunies

to build your business.

Derek Illar may be reached at

[email protected]om

G. Vincent Tese may be reached at

gtese@eckertseamans.com

Danielle Mundekis, SHRM-CP may be reached at

[email protected]om

Building opportunies for diverse businesses in the construcon industry

connued from page 7