Honored for memorial work

Jan. 16, 2004

Many state DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs include a provision entitling the state DOT to recover “liquidated damages” for any shortfall in DBE participation. For many years I have suggested that such provisions are an unenforceable penalty because the amount bears no relationship to any damages suffered by the state DOT as a result of the contractor’s failure to meet the DBE goal. Recently in City of Rochester v. E & L Piping, Inc., 764 N.Y.

Many state DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs include a provision entitling the state DOT to recover “liquidated damages” for any shortfall in DBE participation. For many years I have suggested that such provisions are an unenforceable penalty because the amount bears no relationship to any damages suffered by the state DOT as a result of the contractor’s failure to meet the DBE goal. Recently in City of Rochester v. E & L Piping, Inc., 764 N.Y. S.2d 514 (2003), the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of the contractor based on a finding that the damages were a penalty.

E&L entered into a contract with the city to be the prime contractor on the Rochester War Memorial renovation project to perform heating, ventilation and air conditioning. The contract required E&L to comply with the city and state M/WBE utilization requirements and an African-American-owned business goal of 8.45% and a women-owned business goal of 8%.

The contract contained the “M/WBE Utilization Requirement, City of Rochester Minority and Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) Utilization Goal Construction Setasides.” Under the terms of this utilization requirement were clauses establishing liquidated damages of 125% of the M/WBE goal for noncompliance.

E&L sought summary judgment dismissing the city’s assessment of liquidated damages on the grounds that the contractual remedy of liquidated damages for a breach of the M/WBE plan is an unenforceable penalty. The city asserted that the liquidated damages provision was valid because it was intended to correct the effects of discrimination in the city’s procurement. The city also asserted the socioeconomic benefits of the program were large.

No witness protection

In analyzing the arguments, the Supreme Court first discussed the general legal principles that apply to a liquidated damage clause in a contract, stating, “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation . . . If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced.” The issue for the court was whether the city’s M/WBE liquidated damages clause was grossly disproportionate to the probable harm or loss to the city.

The court found the city had failed to demonstrate any probable damages at the time the parties entered into their agreement that would justify, in the event of a breach, the sum allowed under the liquidated damages provision. The contractual provision for damages in the sum of 125% of any shortfall of the Approved M/WBE Utilization Plan was not an estimate of the extent of injury that would be suffered by the city.

The court also found that liquidated damages were not supported by the city’s witnesses. The purchasing agent testified that the 125% of the shortfall due for failure to comply is a penalty and not liquidated damages. The M/WBE officer testified he did not know why the assessment of 125% was selected or who selected that number. The city’s director of finance’s affidavit stated that the purpose of the liquidated damages provision for violation of the M/WBE “was to correct and/or ease effects of past discrimination and to assist in correcting future discrimination.” No city witness could articulate a reason or basis for the 125% figure or how the city was damaged by the breach of contract.

The court rejected the city’s argument that the liquidated damages clause was intended to compensate an abstract loss for past discrimination and to achieve a public benefit is insufficient to show that this is an enforceable liquidated damages clause. Instead the evidence presented and the language of the liquidated damages clause demonstrates that the amount fixed is plainly disproportionate to the probable loss to the city and, therefore, it is an unenforceable penalty clause.

What does the DBE provision in your state DOT contract provide? If the remedy for failure to meet the DBE goal is liquidated damages, it is likely unenforceable.

Sponsored Recommendations

The Science Behind Sustainable Concrete Sealing Solutions

Extend the lifespan and durability of any concrete. PoreShield is a USDA BioPreferred product and is approved for residential, commercial, and industrial use. It works great above...

Powerful Concrete Protection For ANY Application

PoreShield protects concrete surfaces from water, deicing salts, oil and grease stains, and weather extremes. It's just as effective on major interstates as it is on backyard ...

Concrete Protection That’s Easy on the Environment and Tough to Beat

PoreShield's concrete penetration capabilities go just as deep as our American roots. PoreShield is a plant-based, eco-friendly alternative to solvent-based concrete sealers.

Proven Concrete Protection That’s Safe & Sustainable

Real-life DOT field tests and university researchers have found that PoreShieldTM lasts for 10+ years and extends the life of concrete.