May 24, 2012

Ohio’s Budget, As Recently Passed By The House, Contains Key Changes To Public Construction

On May 5, 2011, the Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 153, Ohio’s main operating budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The current bill contains some key provisions affecting the public construction industry in the areas of prevailing wage law and alternative delivery methods.

Prevailing Wage

Under the budget bill, for prevailing wage requirements to apply, a project must be constructed by a public authority or constructed for the benefit of a public authority to be considered a “public improvement project,” even if the project uses or receives financing, grants, or similar support from a public authority.

The budget bill also increases the prevailing wage thresholds for both construction and reconstruction on public improvements to $3.5 million (with a biennial adjustment as under current law by the Department of Commerce) for projects other than roads, sewers, ditches and other related works. (Threshold levels for road projects remain the same at $78,258 for new construction and $23,447 for reconstruction and repair.) It prohibits school districts and educational service centers from requiring prevailing wages, and exempts from prevailing wage requirements public improvement projects undertaken by, or under contract for, state colleges and universities, various economic development programs administered by the Department of Development, and the construction or repair of a port authority facility.

The budget bill also eliminates the ability of an interested party, such as a labor union, to file a lawsuit against a party that it believes has violated the statute before the Department of Commerce has made its determination.

Alternative Delivery Methods

The budget bill authorizes public authorities, other than the Ohio Turnpike Commission, to use the following alternative methods of construction delivery: construction manager-at-risk, design-build, design-assist, or general contractor. It also eliminates the requirement that the multiple-prime contracting method be used, but does not prohibit its use. Construction manager-at-risk and design-build are defined in the bill, and the process that a public authority must employ to select them is specifically prescribed.

The budget will now be considered by the Senate, where significant changes can still be made. The goal is to have all legislative work on the budget completed and to the governor by June 30, 2011.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Peter Hahn is a Partner in the Litigation Department. Peter's practice focuses on construction-related contracting, disputes, and business matters for owners and contractors. He has broad litigation experience in areas of real estate and construction, contract interpretation, bond and surety issues, and business torts. He also advises clients on intellectual property identification, protection, licensing, and disputes. 

614-227-4286

About the Author

Partner

Donald B. Leach, Jr. is the Managing Partner of the Columbus office and Chair of the Firm's Construction Practice Group where his practice focus is on construction-related contracting, disputes and business matters.
 

614-227-4262

Contributors

Partner

William M. Mattes is a Partner in the Litigation Department. Bill has extensive litigation experience, having completed more than 30 trials and arbitrated and mediated numerous cases throughout Ohio. He obtained a multi-million dollar verdict on behalf of a client in a complicated series of financial transactions and prevailed on appeal. He has favorably settled several multi-million dollar construction disputes. Bill regularly represents owners, lenders, landlords and tenants in foreclosure, receivership and general litigation issues arising in commercial real estate...

614-628-6901

About the Author

Associate

Michael V. Passella is a member of the Litigation Department. Mike focuses his practice on public and private construction law, commercial litigation and real estate law. He represents owners, architects, engineers, construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and sureties in a wide variety of construction-related disputes, including litigation, arbitration, mediation, and contract negotiations.

Mike currently serves as the Chair of the Central Ohio Builders Exchange Law Group, and is a regular presenter at construction law seminars.
 

614-227-4204

About the Author

Associate

Nicole M. Loucks is a member of the Litigation Department. Ms. Loucks focuses her practice in the areas of commercial, construction, and business litigation in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitrations, mediations, and administrative proceedings. In the area of construction litigation, she represents owners, contractors, and subcontractors on a variety of disputes, including defect claims and issues regarding Ohio's Prevailing Wage Law. Ms. Loucks successfully argued in front of the 10th District Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the denial of...

(614) 629-5711

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.