In September 2013, the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, William A. Mundell, announced significant changes to the agency’s complaint process. One such change was that the ROC, rather than the complainants, would decide whether citations would issue. In other words, the ROC now decides whether the evidence provided by complainants and gathered by investigators warrants a citation, instead of simply allowing complainants to request one.
According to Mundell, this change was necessary because citations were issued in response to 36% of the complaints filed in Arizona in the 10 years before the change. By contrast, contractor licensing agencies in other states issue citations in response to only about 5% of complaints.
Should the construction contract you are about to enter contain an indemnification provision? What about “no-damage-for-delay” or differing site condition clauses? Or how about a waiver of consequential damages? The inclusion and scope of these types of provisions (and countless others) in any particular construction contract are things you should discuss with your attorney. Whether they are necessary or should be agreed to may vary depending on the type of project and the parties involved. There are, however, certain minimum elements that must be in every Arizona construction contract.
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently addressed the scope of Arizona’s Prompt Payment Act in RSP Architects, Ltd. v. Five Star Development Resort Communities, LLC, 306 P.3d 93, 232 Ariz. 436 (App. 2013). Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether an architect performing an architectural services contract was a “contractor” entitled to protection under the Act. Consistent with the ordinary definitions of “architect” and “contractor,” the court ultimately held that the Act does not apply to architectural service contracts. But the case was not as straightforward as one might have expected.