Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Vaccinating Against Design and Construction Risk: A COGENCE Alliance Momentum Recap

Client Alert
March 18, 2021

Last month, COGENCE Alliance hosted a four-day conference, attended by owners, affiliates, construction managers, trades, engineers, and architects. David Scott presented and other BMD team members hosted breakout discussions on how to “vaccinate against design and construction risk.” Groups discussed new and developing risks, how to mitigate those risks, and qualities of those who best adjusted to the new and developing risks.

Aggregated Risks in 2019. In 2019, COGENCE gathered information from the six industry segments (owners, affiliates, construction managers, trades, engineers, and architects) to first identify risks from each discrete group’s perspective. Next, COGENCE ranked the identified risks to determine which risks were most significant. Finally, COGENCE worked together across industry segments to identify habits to help mitigate risks and improve projects. The ten greatest risks aggregated across industry segments included: (1) communication; (2) contracts; (3) leadership; (4) schedule; (5) budget; (6) team members; (7) changes; (8) financial; (9) quality; and (10) due diligence.

Changing Risks with COVID-19. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, some of the risks identified by the various industry segments in 2019 quickly changed. Reports from breakout rooms indicated that new and different risks were resultant of the pandemic. For example, industry segments identified new risks associated with an elevated standard of care with heightened expectations and design for occupant safety, as well as new safety and sanitation protocols. Other risks included those related to cybersecurity due to increased remote work, as well as the evolution and need (or lack thereof) for space, such as physical offices.

New Risks with COVID-19. The breakout rooms also discussed how existing risks had morphed. For example, communication, the greatest risk identified pre-pandemic, posited new challenges including Zoom fatigue, complex logistics with site visits, as well as an increase in difficulty to collaborate due to a loss of “serendipitous” communications. Other changes to existing risks included budgetary concerns, particularly relating to the cost of PPE, HVAC improvements, and WELL certifications.

Mitigating New and Changing Risks. To address the new and developing risks, the breakout rooms discussed how to mitigate certain risks, which included more frontend planning, running through project stress tests (e.g. check technology and remote access), and developing more robust onboarding protocols to integrate new team members. Other mitigation plans revolved around communication, specifically ensuring consistent communication, standardizing how teams communicate (email, videoconference, phone call, text), following up after meetings, and identifying issues early and often.

Adapting to New and Changing Risks. The breakout rooms concluded by discussing those who have been most effective in adapting to the new and developing risks of the pandemic. Groups identified that those who demonstrate care and concern for their team members, as well as those willing to seek information and consequently learn and adapt had best weathered the new challenges in design and construction.

If you have questions or need more information regarding design and construction risk, please contact Construction Law Member David Scott at dmscott@bmdllc.com (614.246.7514).

Health LawHealthcare LawHospital LawCOVID-19krista warrenDavid Scott
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts