Our professionalism in all of our dealings with clients and prospective clients distinguishes us in this industry. Part of that professionalism is a responsibility to provide service and expertise to all who approach us seeking surety support, regardless of size, sex, race, color, or creed. As surety professionals, we should feel an imperative to provide the best possible service to anyone seeking our help. The perception of a lack of attention to the small and minority contractor is a very real issue in the marketplace today. NASBP members have more than a responsibility; we have a duty to address this situation with all of the resources available to us.

Many of us know the gratification of providing a contractor their first bond. After having earned the role of trusted advisor to the client, the economic rewards become self-evident as these kind of home-grown accounts become long-term clients.

In a spirit of mutual cooperation with The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), we have been working together to make the SFAA Model Contractor Program work. I encourage all members to become involved with this type of outreach program when the opportunity presents itself. You will find the experience to be rewarding and your time well-spent. Not only will you meet and instruct those contractors who may become the future of the construction industry, but you will demonstrate the surety industry’s commitment to serving this unique segment of the market.

At the Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, Florida, Arnaldo Soto of Carrion, Laffitte & Casellas, Inc. of San Juan, Puerto Rico volunteered to spearhead an NASBP initiative for small and minority contractors. Work is progressing to present our membership with a well-thought-out tool that can be used in this vital area of need. Upon finalization, it will be made available to the membership.

Speaking of educational initiatives, the Professional Development Committee held another successful School in Dallas in August. Levels I and II were again well-attended and over-subscribed. NASBP has scheduled an additional Level I school to be held in Atlanta in October.

As the year has progressed, Florence and I have enjoyed attending the NASBP Annual and the Regional Meetings. Visiting with NASBP members and affiliates in these intimate settings have been delightful and personally rewarding. Please feel free to seek us out and make yourselves known to us, and I whole heartedly welcome your comments and suggestions.

In closing, September 11th, 2008 marked the 7th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. Please take time this month to remember the victims of the attacks that lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania that fateful day. Keep their families, the survivors, and the responders in your thoughts and prayers. “We will never forget”

William F. Maroney is Senior Vice President of City Underwriting Agency, Inc. of Lake Success, New York. He can be reached at bmaroney@cuagency.com.

To assist contracting officers with their evaluation, individual sureties are required to complete, sign, and have notarized an affidavit of individual surety (Standard Form 28). The affidavits must include a specific description of the assets pledged, including certified evidence of such assets, and identify other bonds for which the assets have been pledged and any encumbrances on such assets. The affidavit includes a sworn statement to the federal government concerning the validity of the information described in the affidavit. Contracting officers also are required to obtain agency legal review concerning the sufficiency of the documentation pledging the assets of the individual surety before accepting the bonds furnished by individual sureties.

Under applicable provisions of the FAR, individual sureties must pledge certain assets together with a valid, enforceable security interest in such assets. Security interests are to be furnished with the bond. Moreover, such assets, other than real estate, must be placed in an escrow account with a federally insured financial institution, and the terms of such arrangement must be acceptable to the contracting officer (see FAR 28.203-1). The FAR at 28.203-2(b) provides a list of acceptable assets, summarized as follows:

• cash, or certificates of deposit, or other cash equivalents with a federally insured financial institution,
• United State government securities,
• stocks and bonds actively traded on a national U.S. security exchange,
• real property owned fee simple by the surety subject to certain conditions (see FAR 28.203-2(b)(4)),
• irrevocable letters of credit issued by a federally insured financial institution in the name of the contracting agency and which identify the agency and solicitation or contract number.

Certain assets are not permitted to back individual surety bonds. The FAR at 28.203-2(c) lists unacceptable assets, including:

• notes or account receivable,
• foreign securities,
• real property located outside the United States, its territories or possessions,
• real property used as the principal residence of the surety
• real property owned concurrently,
• life estates, leasehold estates, or future interest in real property
• personal property except as listed in FAR 28.203-2(b),
• stocks and bonds of the individual surety in a controlled, affiliated or closely held concern of the offeror/contractor,
• corporate assets,
• speculative assets,
• letters of credit except as provided in FAR 28.203(b)(5).

Finally, the unencumbered value of pledged individual surety assets must equal or exceed the penal amount of each bond.

Like many sets of complex regulations, the FAR sometimes contains wording and provisions that may be considered confusing or be subject to differing interpretations, particularly with respect to how one regulation relates to or effects another. Administrative or judicial decisions that interpret the intent of such wording or provisions may be “few and far between,” if any. When they do occur, however, such decisions can serve to remedy any confusion caused by imprecise wording or ambiguity or to elucidate further the meaning of these important regulations. In August, the United States Court of Federal Claims, in Tip Top Construction, Inc. v. United States, had the opportunity to do just that by examining and addressing key regulations contained in the FAR governing individual sureties. (The opinion is available at the U.S Court of Federal Claims web site at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/.)

Tip Top Construction involved a post-award bid protest, where the apparent lowest bidder, Tip Top Construction, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to void the award of a road construction contract by the Federal Highway Administration to another contractor in St. John of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Tip Top Construction was one of three bidders for the road construction project and was the lowest bidder, coming $1.4 million under the next lowest bidder. However, the contracting officer rejected Tip Top Construction’s bid on the basis that Tip Top Construction failed to “furnish a bid guarantee in accordance with the requirements of the invitation for bids.” More specifically, the contracting officer rejected Tip Top Construction’s bid because it was submitted with a bid bond from an individual surety that, in the opinion of the contracting officer, was supported by assets that did not meet FAR requirements.

The individual surety, related the Court, had pledged “marketable coal” as the assets backing the bid bond. The contracting officer viewed “marketable or mined coal” as a “speculative asset” excluded by section 28.203-29(c)(7) of the FAR. The US Court of Federal Claims further reported that the individual surety, through its legal counsel, disagreed with the contracting agency’s interpretation, contending that the contracting officer misinterpreted the FAR and that “marketable coal” fell within the acceptable assets category in the FAR. (The Court pointed out in a footnote to its opinion that the mined coal was actually “coal refuse,” but since that information was not known at the time of the contracting officer’s decision, the Court would not consider that information in its decision.)

Prior to initiating suit in the US Court of Federal Claims, Tip Top Construction had filed a pre-award bid protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO), seeking a stay of the award of the contract due to the contracting officer’s allegedly erroneous decision in eliminating Tip Top Construction’s bid. The GAO subsequently denied Tip Top Construction’s protest, concluding that mined coal was not an acceptable asset under the FAR because it could not be physically placed in an escrow account as required by FAR 28.203-1(b). The GAO decision also addressed Tip Top Construction’s contention that it should have been given the opportunity to substitute a different asset for the coal to back the bid bond; GAO reasoned that a contracting agency is allowed to reject a bid bond without granting the bidder’s request for substitution of assets. Tip Top Construction then filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

After determining that Tip Top Construction had standing to bring the suit, the US Court of Federal Claims examined whether the contracting officer’s determination concerning the coal asset was arbitrary and unreasonable. The federal government argued that the contracting officer’s determination was based on a rational interpretation of the FAR and, therefore, was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court noted that the federal government’s main contentions were threefold: (1) coal is not an acceptable asset under the FAR; (2) the contracting officer had no duty to request additional information about the coal asset; and (3) the contracting officer had no duty to suggest substitution of the asset and had discretion to reject the substitution request. The Court pointed out that the contracting officer “has a considerable degree of discretion in making a responsibility determination” and that the contracting officer, as stated in prior case law, ‘is the arbiter of what, and how much, information he needs.’

The Court then recounted the respective arguments of the parties. Tip Top Construction contended that the lists of acceptable and unacceptable assets in FAR 28.203-2 are not exclusive. Tip Top Construction also contended that mined coal is not a “speculative” asset since the only example given of a speculative asset in the FAR is a “mineral right”; rather, the coal should be viewed as a “readily marketable” asset that falls within the category of acceptable assets and that a security interest in the assets, not the assets being physically placed in an escrow account, is sufficient to meet FAR requirements.

The federal government, on the other hand, argued that the FAR provision addressing acceptable assets is an exclusive list and that another FAR provision requires all acceptable personal property to be physically placed in an escrow account. The federal government further pointed out that the FAR had been amended in 1989 to reflect the requirement of an escrow account for acceptable personal property, which, the federal government argued, demonstrated that the “the FAR drafters contemplated that individual sureties were to pledge assets like cash, CDs, or stocks and bonds which could easily be placed into a mandatory escrow account.”

Stating that the relevant sections of the FAR are “convoluted and not easily followed,” the US Court of Federal Claims nonetheless concluded that, when all the pertinent sections of the FAR are “read together,” they support the contracting officer’s final determination that Tip Top Construction’s “proffered coal asset was unacceptable.” The Court, however, opted not to address the issue of whether the list of acceptable assets in the FAR is an exclusive list. Instead, the Court reached its decision by focusing on the particular security interest required under the FAR for personal property pledged as an asset to back a bond issued by an individual surety. The Court read FAR 28.203-1 to require a security interest in the pledged asset as either an escrow account for personal property or a lien on real property. The Court added that the provisions of Standard Form 28, the required affidavit of individual surety, “reflect a specific requirement that an escrow account be provided for all assets other than real estate.” The Court further noted that the contract clause at FAR 52.228-11, pertaining to pledges of assets by individual sureties, reinforces that conclusion. Since the coal asset was not capable of being placed in an escrow account, as required by the controlling FAR provisions and the terms of the solicitation, the coal asset was not an acceptable asset, concluded the Court.

The US Court of Federal Claims also rejected Tip Top Construction’s contentions that the contracting officer had a duty to ask for more information about the coal asset and should have allowed Tip Top Construction the opportunity to substitute other assets for the coal. In dismissing the first contention, the Court noted that a contracting officer is afforded broad discretion as to whether to request additional information and, in this case, the contracting officer already had determined that the coal was not an acceptable asset under the FAR and, therefore, did not need to inquire further about the asset. With respect to the second contention, the Court observed that the language of the applicable FAR provision (see FAR 28.203-4) does not impose an affirmative duty on the contracting officer to allow or to consider substitution of an asset. The Court also found that the contracting officer did not abuse her discretion in failing to allow a substitution of assets, since no formal request for substitution of assets in writing was made by the individual surety to the contracting officer, as required under FAR 28.203-4.

These materials are provided to NASBP members and affiliates solely for educational and informational purposes. They are not to be considered the rendering of legal advice in specific cases or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers are responsible for obtaining legal advice from their own counsels, and should not act upon any information contained in these materials without such advice.

• ConsensusDOCS™ 260: Performance Bond Form
• ConsensusDOCS™ 261: Payment Bond Form
• ConsensusDOCS™ 262: Bid Bond
• ConsensusDOCS™ 263: Warranty Bond
• ConsensusDOCS™ 470: Design-Build Performance Bond (Surety Liable for Design Costs)
• ConsensusDOCS™ 471: Design-Build Performance Bond (Surety Not Liable for Design Costs)
• ConsensusDOCS™ 472: Design-Build Payment Bond (Surety Liable for Design Costs)
• ConsensusDOCS™ 473: Design-Build Payment Bond (Surety Not Liable for Design Costs)
• ConsensusDOCS™ 706: Subcontract Performance Bond
• ConsensusDOCS™ 707: Subcontract Payment Bond
• ConsensusDOCS™ 760: Subcontract Bid Bond

The terms of the agreement require that NASBP offer the bond forms in PDF formats that permit completion of the form solely in the designated blank areas. These “fill-in” PDFs are required to be housed in a password protected area of the NASBP web site and will be accessible for download after the member or the affiliate agrees to the accompanying “click wrap” user license and supplies the requested contact information.

NASBP has begun the process of developing the “fill-in” PDF files and the section of the NASBP web site to house them, planning on the debut of the system for mid-October. The ConsensusDOCS™ initiative hopes that the licensing arrangement will encourage the surety community to become more familiar with and to suggest use of these bond forms by the larger construction community.

NASBP-Supported Web Seminar

On September 18, a Web seminar will be held from 2–3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the ConsensusDOCS bond and insurance forms. Among the speakers will be representatives from NASBP Member IMA of Texas Inc. of Dallas, Texas and from the staff of The Surety and Fidelity Association of America (SFAA). Registration fee for NASBP members and affiliates is $149. For more information, contact Lynette Nichols (703) 837-5356 or go to http://www.consensusdocs.org

The panel of speakers includes:

• Sue Holt, Servicing Account Manager of IMA of Texas
• George Schneller, Contract Administrator of IMA of Texas
• Rob Duke, Director of Underwriting/Assistant Counsel of SFAA

NASBP is an endorsing organization of the ConsensusDOCS™ coalition, an unprecedented effort by more than 20 other industry organizations to identify industry best practices and to incorporate such practices in a new generation of consensus industry standard form documents. For more information about NASBP’s participation as an endorsing member of ConsensusDOCS™, click here.

No one questions the fact that design-build contractors have a significant professional liability exposure. They are directly responsible to the owner for the design of a project, and whether they do this in house or sub it out, they remain responsible. Sureties are very aware of the need for contractors professional liability coverage and the importance of appropriately managing this exposure.

Over the years, however, the line of distinction between “means and methods of construction” and “professional services” has blurred. In addition, even when general contractors are not working under a design build project delivery method, they may actually subcontract out design to certain subcontractors (mechanical, electrical, etc.) In fact, many components of buildings, such as elevators, curtain walls, and fire sprinkler systems, typically are designed by specialty trade contractors. Furthermore, standard construction contracts have changed how they allocate design responsibilities and risk. As a result many “ordinary” contractors may have a professional liability exposure.

To understand why a contractor needs professional liability insurance, you really need to understand what your commercial general liability policy does not cover. The basic commercial general liability policy, published by the insurance services office (CG0001) does not contain a professional liability exclusion, although most insurance companies do add an exclusion by endorsement. Even if a professional liability exclusion is not added, a commercial general liability insurance policy responds only to liability arising out of either bodily injury or tangible property damage; economic damages are not covered. Unfortunately, more than 50% of the claims against design professionals are for economic damages. If a claim were made for economic damages, there would be no coverage under a commercial general liability policy, even if there were no professional liability exclusion.

Since nearly all, if not all, insurance companies providing coverage for construction contractors will specifically exclude liability arising out of the professional services typically performed by architects and engineers, this creates the need for a contractors professional liability policy.

“But I sub out the design,” you might say, “and my design professional carries professional liability insurance and has agreed to indemnify me for any liability arising out of his negligent acts, errors or emissions. Why do I need professional liability?” Here are a few of the numerous reasons:

Hold harmless provisions can be declared unenforceable.

The design firm may be out of business and/or may have dropped its professional liability insurance when the claim is made. (Professional liability insurance policies are written on a claims-made basis, and coverage must be in force at the time a claim is made to trigger coverage.)

The design professional’s insurance policy only extends to contractual assumptions of liability that the design professional would have had in the absence of a contract. In laymen’s terms, this means the design professional can only indemnify you for his/her negligent acts errors or emissions, and cannot assume your concurrent tort liability.
The design professional’s policy limits may be inadequate or may have been exhausted by other claims

In addition, some contractors have direct professional liability exposures. They may have in-house design professionals, or they may provide construction management advisory type services that are consultative in nature (as opposed to construction related).
To address a contractor’s direct professional liability exposure, the insurance industry developed contractors professional liability policies. This coverage is offered by several different insurance companies, and typically provides direct and contingent liability coverage. Almost all contractors have either a direct or indirect professional liability exposure and should evaluate this type of policy and the appropriate risk management techniques available.

What Does Contractors Professional Liability (CPL) Insurance Cover?

To be brief, a CPL policy provides coverage for claims alleging an act, error or omission arising out of the performance of professional services. The key here is defining “professional services,” and this can be done in two ways. One is to include a standard list of covered activities in the policy, and the second is to tailor the definition for each insured contractor, based on the types of services they actually provide. Whichever approach is taken, it is critical that the definition of professional services encompass all the services that the contractor might provide. (see below SIDEBAR)

Claims-Made Form

As previously mentioned, most if not all professional liability policies for contractors are written on a claims-made basis. This means that in order for coverage to apply, the policy must be in force when the claim is made. In other words, if you decide to carry contactors professional liability insurance, it should be a long-term decision.

Recognize as well that every policy has a retroactive date. The retroactive date is usually the inception date of the first professional liability policy. Any claims arising out of work done prior to the retroactive date are specifically excluded.

What Constitutes a Claim?

A claim is generally defined as “a demand for money or services.” In other words, if someone claims that you did something wrong and demands that you either pay them money or perform additional services, this would be considered a claim. There may also be circumstances, which you are aware of which might give rise to a claim, but has not been the subject of a demand. A well-written contractors professional liability policy will allow you to report this under the policy, and the insurer will recognize it as a claim if there is a subsequent demand made for money or services.

Extended Reporting Periods

Sometimes, when the decision is made to discontinue a professional liability policy, you will have the option of purchasing an Extended Reporting Period (ERP) endorsement. This extends the period of time within which a claim can be made for services arising prior to the date that the endorsement was purchased (this is commonly done at retirement). Recognize, however, that extended reporting period endorsements tend to be expensive due to what is known as “adverse selection.” Those who think they need it tend to buy it, and hence the claims experience for this is not good.

What Isn’t Covered Under a CPL Policy?

Contractors professional liability policies are all manuscripted policy forms created by the insurance companies providing the coverage. Before selecting a specific policy, the coverage form should be reviewed by your insurance broker (assuming he is a specialist in this area and is capable of providing such an analysis for you). Like most open peril or “all risk” types of insurance policies, everything is generally covered except what is specifically excluded. Some common exclusions are listed in the side bar that accompanies this article. Some exclusions are more critical than others, and these should be specifically addressed.

Express Warrantees Are Guarantees

The law does not require design professionals to be perfect. It merely requires them to perform to a standard of care, typically defined as “that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances.” Most design professionals avoid agreeing to express warrantees or guarantees. Contractors, however, commonly provide express performance warrantees to project owners that exceed a design professional’s “standard of care,” and this becomes a problem.

Basically, if the contractor agrees to warrant not only its construction services but also its design services, it has agreed to a standard of care that is not covered by its professional liability policy. Candidly, this is one of the most significant benefits to an owner of the design-build delivery process. It transfers this gap (alternatively known as the “liability gap” or the “Spearin Gap”) from the owner to the contractor. With this in mind, the contractor needs to avoid, if at all possible, guaranteeing or warranting the design aspects of the work. This also includes long term efficiency guarantees that promise the finished product will meet a certain performance standards, for example in the design of a clean medical testing room.

Contractual Liability

Contractors have become accustomed to agreeing to sign intermediate form indemnification agreements. Such an agreement requires the contractor to hold harmless and indemnify the owner not only from the contractor’s negligence but also the concurrent or joint negligence of the owner. This is legal in most states and is usually covered by the contractor’s general liability policy. This is because the general liability policy typically provides broad form contractual liability, which allows the contractor to assume the tort liability of a third party.

Unfortunately, professional liability polices provide narrow contractual coverage. It only extends to such liability that would have attached by law in the absence of such agreement because of a negligent act, error or omission of the design professional. Because of this, it is imperative that you carefully review the indemnity agreements you are asked to sign to make certain that you are not assuming uninsurable obligations from a design standpoint.

Pollution Liability

Most commercial general liability policies specifically exclude pollution, and usually mold as well. Most contractors professional liability policies are written without a pollution exclusion. Note, however, that this does not close the gap created by the exclusion in the general liability policy. It merely extends pollution coverage to damages arising out of professional services.

In order to correctly close the gap in the general liability policy, you would need to buy a separate contractors pollution liability policy. (These are occasionally written in conjunction with a contractor’s professional policy.)

Means and Methods of Construction

For obvious reasons, the professional liability policy usually contains a “means and methods of construction” exclusion. The purpose of this is to avoid overlap with the commercial general liability policy.

What Does It Cost?

In order to determine the premium for a contractors professional liability policy, a rather exhaustive application is required. In addition to the application itself, a number of other supplements are usually requested. The premium is based on what the underwriter perceives the risk exposure to be. Because the nature of professional services differs so greatly between contractors, one is hard pressed to provide a ballpark figure of cost. Typically, however, it is a fraction of what the commercial general liability policy costs.

Sureties’ Perspective

Performance bonds are improperly suited for guaranteeing direct or indirect compliance or completeness and accuracy of plans, specifications and efficiency expectations for construction projects. When professional liability exposures exist in bonded contracts, the surety and the contractor become “insurers” of design liabilities arising out of the performance of the contract. Obviously, sureties and contractors have no financial basis or technical expertise to handle professional liability claims.

Before bonding a design-build contracts, there are several underwriting issues considered; extent of the project’s design and efficiency requirements, known and unknown scope and costs, owner’s participation in progress conformance verification, financial cash flow requirements, term of liability, etc. These contract issues are evaluated along with the design-build teams experience, capabilities, financial strength, and risk management plan.

Sureties’ strongly advise or often require contractors to properly manage this exposure by procuring the appropriate contractors professional liability coverage. Additionally, sureties prefer to limit or remove the exposures to professional liability from a bonded contract when it is practical to do so. This includes contractually limiting the exposure of professional liability to the amount of collectable insurance or separating the design and efficiency requirements from the bonded contract and bond forms, i.e. “The bond does not cover any responsibility for negligence, errors or omissions in design OR warranty of design. Coverage under the bond is limited to only the construction phase and post construction phase of the contract. The bond premium is based upon the value of the construction and post construction phase of the contract and not upon the design aspect of the contract.”

Sureties expect contractors to be aware of their professional liability exposures and manage them.

For more information, click here to go to the area of the NASBP web site that provides various resources on risk management.

This seminar is designed for insurance underwriters, risk managers and others in the construction, insurance, and surety industries who want to gain a better understanding of ConsensusDOCS™ documents. The seminar will include discussion of: how ConsensusDOCS™ and the new American Institute of Architects 2007 documents represent dramatically different approaches to various contract issues, the effective use of the ConsensusDOCS™ documents, specific ConsensusDOCS™ documents, and the overall intent behind the ConsensusDOCS™ contracts.

The seminar speakers, of whom NASBP members and affiliates may recognize as speakers from past NASBP events, have had significant involvement in drafting and in reviewing the ConsensusDOCS™ documents and have used the ConsensusDOCS™ documents for projects. The distinguished panel includes:

• Ricardo Aparicio, AIA, Esq., Senior Counsel and Contracts Manager for Corporate Properties & Services Operation, General Electric Company
• Robert F. Carney, Esq., Partner & Head of the Construction Group, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP
• J. William Ernstrom, Esq., Vice President, Strategic Major Project Advisor, The Walsh Group
• Mark H. McCallum, Esq., General Counsel & Director of Government Relations, National Association of Surety Bond Producers
• Moderator, Martha Perkins, Esq., Partner of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP

The registration fee is $80 for PWC and WBC Members and $100 for Non-Members.
For more registration information, click here. Please direct questions to Martha Perkins at mperkins@wtplaw.com.

Those with responsibility for evaluating, managing or insuring construction risks, will find this seminar of particular interest, specifically the following.

• Risk managers and CFOs of general contractors, subcontractors, and specialty trades
• Risk managers of organizations with planned construction projects
• Insurance agents and brokers with contractor, subcontractor, and developer clients
• Insurance underwriters
• Attorneys
• Architects and Engineers, and
• Lenders.

Feedback from members and affiliates who use the NASBP Career Center reveals that the Center has helped fill their vacant positions quickly. A popular feature of the Center is the automatic e-mail notification which notifies them via e-mail when new resumes are posted and makes searching for candidates matching the position’s requirements fast and easy.

Other benefits of the Center that members and affiliates appreciate are the ability to access a focused, qualified talent pool and to browse the resumes posted at the site at their convenience.

Members and affiliates or their human resource administrator can access these resumes simply by purchasing a package from the Career Center for as little as the NASBP member/affiliate rate of $100 (a 30-day Online Job Package). For more information go to: http://www.nasbp.org/careers

Level II will be January 25-30, 2009 and will provide intensive training in contractor profiling, financial analysis, concepts and effective practices of account activation and service, sales and marketing, claims handling, industry marketplace changes, and ethics. Level II is intended for the new in-the-field bond producer with one to six years of experience.

Click here for more information and to register.

Each class selected an “Outstanding Student” for recognition during the graduation dinner. The honors went to the following. The Level I Red Team Outstanding Student was Rob Stoneburner of Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc in Daytona Beach, FL. The Level I Yellow Team Outstanding Student was David Hite of Flood & Peterson Insurance in Greeley, CO.

The Level II Blue Team Outstanding Student was Eileen Frank of JP West Inc. in New York, NY. The Green Team Outstanding Student was Matt Beernaert of HCC Surety Group in Sacramento, CA.

Congratulations to all graduating students, and thanks to an outstanding faculty for sharing their time and expertise!

Level I Red Team Most Outstanding Student, Rob Stoneburner, (second from left) with faculty (from left) Dave Castillo, Tom Padilla, Paul Amstutz and Bill Maroney.

Level I Yellow Team Most Outstanding Student Dave Hite (center) with faculty (from left) Erle Benton, Matt Cashion, Bill Maroney and Paul Amstutz.

Level II Green Team Most Outstanding Student Matt Beernaert (second from right) with faculty (from left) Matt Cashion, Tom Padilla and Bill Maroney. Blue Team’s Outstanding Student, Eileen Frank, was unavailable when this picture was taken.

NASBP Director of Operations and Finance, Koula Korson,
celebrates her 30 years with NASBP.

CIECI will hold its first Forum October 16-17, 2008 at the Marriott Metro Center Hotel in Washington, DC. The theme of the Forum is “Building Public Trust in the U.S. Construction Industry through Transparency and Accountability — Leading the Way.” The Forum is open to members of the Initiative and those companies who may be interested in becoming members.

Highlights of the Forum include:

• A CEO panel discussion on how ethical business conduct enriches the bottom line.
• A panel showing examples of the essential elements of an effective ethics and compliance program.
• A presentation on how smaller companies may build an effective ethics and compliance program on a budget.
• A government panel consisting of federal agency debarring officials and the Department Of Justice Criminal Division addressing effective programs to avoid prosecution and debarment.
• A luncheon address by the Deputy Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Major General Don Riley.

To register ($175 per person) for the Forum, click here: http://www.ciecinitiative.org
Questions can be directed to the Coordinator, Dick Bednar at 202-624-2619 or rbednar@crowell.com.

The vision of CIECI is an ethical construction industry, with transparent business practices, accountability, and absence of conflicts of interest. The CIECI Charter states that it will neither serve as a lobbying organization nor attempt to regulate or sanction behavior of its members or other industry participants. The Members of the CIECI agree to adopt and adhere to a set of Principles including a code of business conduct.

The Initiative is open to all companies in the construction industry, regardless of size, including architect/engineers, general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. Among the current member organizations are Clark Construction Group, LLC of Bethesda, Maryland; Sundt Construction, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona; and The Walsh Group of Chicago, Illinois.

To view a press release announcing the CIECI’s first Forum, click here.

ABD Financial & Insurance Services
http://www.cybersure.com
Los Angeles, CA
Key Contact: Teresa Jackson

Bell Anderson Agency, Inc.
http://www.bell-anderson.com
Kent, WA
Key Contact: Glenn Davidson

Phillips Insurance Agency, Inc.
http://www.phillipsinsurance.com
Chicopee, MA
Key Contact: Joseph Phillips

Wells Fargo Insurance Services of NC
http://www.wellsfargo.com
Burlington, NC
Key Contact: Kevin Stubbe

New Affiliates

Argo Surety
http://www.argosurety.com
Houston, TX
Key Contact: Robert Thomas

John B. Collins Associates, Inc.
http://www.collins.com
Philadelphia, PA
Key Contact: Robert Duffield

Victore Insurance Company
http://www.victoreinsurance.com
Oklahoma City, OK
Key Contact: Andrew Allison

	Surety Bonds: A Guide for Private Owners – Contains four PowerPoint® presentations, “Contract Surety Bonds: Protecting Your Investment,” “Why Do Contractors Fail?” “Managing the Surety Claims Process,” and “Case in Point: Surety’s Involvement Saves Projects,” and links to SIO resources.
	Surety Bonds: A Guide for Lenders – Contains the Web seminar “Banking & Bonding: How to Mitigate Construction Risk” presented to the Risk Management Association (RMA) and two PowerPoint® presentations, “Managing the Surety Claims Process” and “Case in Point: Surety’s Involvement Saves Projects.”
	Surety Bonds: A Guide for Public Construction – Contains three PowerPoint® presentations, “Surety Bonds: Managing Risk on Public Works,” “Why Do Contractors Fail?” and “Case in Point: Surety’s Involvement Saves Projects,” and links to SIO resources.
	Surety Bonds: A Guide for Students – Contains two PowerPoint® presentations, “Risk and Responsibility: Understanding Contract Surety Bonds” and “Case in Point: Surety’s Involvement Saves Projects,” a study guide, and links to SIO resources.
	Surety Bonds: A Guide for Contractors – Contains three PowerPoint® presentations, “How to Obtain Surety Bonds,” “Building a Solid Surety Relationship,” and “Subcontractor Bonding: Managing Risk,” and links to SIO resources.

To order these free CDs, visit SIO’s online store or contact SIO at (202) 686-7463 or sio@sio.org