�鶹��ý

Julie Huval, Beck Technology The acronym “BIM” is showing up more and more in our industry. Owners are requiring it on projects, countries are setting standards for it, and firms are touting expertise in it. But what is Building Information Modeling (BIM) and, as marketers and business developers, why should we care?

Mike Clancy, Cynthia Paul, FMI Corporation Contractors’ get work departments can be like a car with a bad alignment. While everyone is working hard to get where they want to go, some of the effort is being pulled toward the “ditch” of low hit rates, missed opportunities and undeveloped client relationships. All that is needed are a few key adjustments to win your fair share of work.

Go in depth on the troubles facing multiemployer pension plans, what is being done to address the growing problems, and what it all means for the construction industry and the economy at large on the latest episode of the ConstructorCast

<p>A new <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/pdf/2016-12494.pdf"><u>rule</u> </a>by the Small Business Administration makes several changes to small business contracting regulations. These changes, set to go into effect June 30, are aimed at increasing small-business competition and enabling small businesses to potentially obtain larger contracts without increasing compliance costs.  In April, �鶹��ý <a href="http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/agcleg/downloads/�鶹��ý%20Comments%20on%20SBA%20Performance%20of%20Work%20Prop%20Rule.pdf"><u>submitted comments</u></a> on the proposed rule.</p>

<p>The U.S. Supreme Court issued a <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co-inc/"><u>ruling</u> </a>that will allow landowners to challenge a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determination that a jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) is present on property where they want to build.  A “jurisdictional determination” significantly impacts how land may be used, dramatically raises costs, and often reduces the feasibility of constructing critical infrastructure. �鶹��ý submitted a joint “friend of the court” brief in the case, US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., making a strong case for why it is vital for contractors to know with certainty whether their property contains a WOTUS. The Court’s findings closely track the points �鶹��ý argued in <u><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/15-290-bsac-American-Farm-Bureau-Federation.pdf">its joint amicus brie</a>f</u>.  �鶹��ý was the only trade association to advance the commercial construction industry’s interest in the outcome of this case and, once again, �鶹��ý has succeeded in changing facts on the ground. This decision will have a material impact on the way that the Section 404 permit program actually functions.</p>

This week, 132 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Ranking Democrat Sander Levin (Mich.) in support of fixing the Highway Trust Fund as part of comprehensive tax reform. Thanks to the �鶹��ý members who met with their representatives during the TCC Fly-In or contacted their representatives asking them to sign the letter.

<p>On May 17, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unanimously approved �鶹��ý-supported <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr5199/BILLS-114hr5199ih.pdf"><u>legislation</u> </a>that would (1) require civilian federal agencies—non-Department of Defense agencies—to utilize the two-step design-build selection process for design-build projects greater than $3 million, thereby limiting one-step design-build procurements; and (2) help prohibit reverse auctions for certain construction services. Introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the bill—H.R. 5199—is nearly identical to the <a href="/news/2016/02/11/agc-backed-procurement-legislation-passes-senate-panel"><u>�鶹��ý-backed legislation</u></a> passed by a Senate Committee in February. �鶹��ý will continue to push for enactment of these procurement reforms.</p>

<p>In what may be a 12-round bout, �鶹��ý has scored another victory on the path to expunging President Obama’s <u><a href="/news/2015/08/28/agc-submits-comments-opposing-blacklisting-executive-order">Blacklisting Executive Order</a>.</u> On May 19, the House of Representatives approved legislation that includes an �鶹��ý-backed provision to the National Defense Authorization Act—a bill that has been annually enacted into law for 54 consecutive years—that ensures the EO would not apply to Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security Administration contracts. �鶹��ý will work with Congress to limit the Executive Order.</p>

The House of Representatives today failed—on a vote of 209-216—to pass �鶹��ý-supported legislation that would block further implementation of President Obama’s 2009 executive order encouraging federal agencies to consider government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on construction projects. �鶹��ý, along with other industry allies, urged members of the House to support this initiative and will continue to advocate against government-mandated PLAs.

<p>On May 18, the U.S. Department of Labor released its <a href="https://www.dol.gov/featured/overtime"><u>final rule</u></a> implementing changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations.  The most significant change is a doubling of the standard salary threshold for exempt employees – from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $913 per week ($47,476 per year).  The rule takes effect on Dec. 1, 2016. In 2015, �鶹��ý sent both <a href="/sites/default/files/Files/Labor%20%26%20HR%20%28public%29/�鶹��ý%20Comments%20to%20Overtime%20NPRM%20-%20Final_2.pdf"><u>individual comments</u></a> and signed onto <a href="/sites/default/files/Files/Labor%20%26%20HR%20%28public%29/PPWO%20Comments%20Overtime_1.pdf"><u>coalition comments</u></a> on the proposed rule. These comments raised strong concerns that the proposed salary threshold of $970 per week ($50,440 per year) would be too large an increase for employers to absorb all at once. While not all of �鶹��ý’s and the coalition’s recommendations were accepted, the final rule does establish a lower salary threshold than originally proposed.  The final rule’s concession for bonuses and commissions and its abstinence from changing the duties test are also consistent with �鶹��ý’s recommendations.</p>