Illinois Construction Law Blog : Illinois Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Foran Glennon Palandech & Ponzi Law Firm : Chicago IL

In Abari Construction Co., Inc. v. State of Illinois, 59 Ill. Ct. Cl. 316, 2007 WL 7076039 (2007), the Illinois Court of Claims dismissed a contractor's complaint for the contractor's failure to timely file suit under the terms of its contract with the Illinois Department of Transportation ("IDOT").  Abari sought delay damages from IDOT for a bridge reconstruction project.  The contract mandated three levels of administrative review prior to commencement of suit before the Court of Claims, but also required that suit be filed within 60 days of the final decision from the IDOT third level reviewers.

Abari made a contract claim, which made its way through the administrative review process and a final decision was issued in January 2003.  Abari did not file suit in the Court of Claims until October 2003, over eight months after the final decision was rendered by IDOT.  The State, on behalf of IDOT, moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred by the contractual limitations period.

The Court granted the State's motion to dismiss, noting that Illinois law is clear that parties can contractually agree to shorter limitations periods to replace statutory limitations periods, so long as the contractual period is reasonable.  Moreover, the Court of Claims Act specifically allows for the applicability of shorter limitations periods than those set forth by the Court of Claims Act.

What should we take away from the holding in Abari?  Quite simply, reasonable contractual limitations periods will be upheld in nearly any context.  Contractors must be knowledgeable concerning the limitations periods in their contracts and vigilant in enforcing those limitations periods. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From time to time we will report on new cases that have been filed that are related to the construction industry. 

Walsh Construction has filed suit against the City of Chicago requesting that the court declare that bids submitted by two other contractors for the Congress Parkway Interchange Improvements project are non-responsive and that its own bid is responsive.  In addition, Walsh is seeking an order enjoining the City from accepting either of the two bids.

Walsh, along with Paschen/Cabo and James McHugh, submitted a bid for the Congress Parkway Interchange Improvements project.  It is Walsh's contention that the City of Chicago violated its own Municipal Purchasing Act by even considering the other bids because they were non-responsive to the Bid Deposit specification.  Paschen/Cabo is alleged to have filed to include a bid deposit of any kind and McHugh is alleged to have provided the bid deposit in the form of a company check rather than the required certified check, cashier's check or money order.  Walsh alleges that it complied with the specification and, therefore, submitted the sole responsible and responsive bid.  It should also be noted that the Paschen/Cabo and McHugh bids were lower than Walsh's bid for the project.

We will continue to monitor this litigation and report on any important details.   

Just last week, a personal injury complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County against unknown architects, engineers, and designers of Golf Road in Des Plaines, Illinois.  The complaint, filed on behalf of Plaintiff Magdalena Walus, alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an icy roadway on Golf Road near the Des Plaines River.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Golf Road, where it meets the Des Plaines River, regularly floods with river water and freezes, causing dangerous conditions.  Furthermore, the complaint alleges that defendants had knowledge that such flooding took place at the time of designing, engineering, planning and constructing Golf Road and willfully disregarded said knowledge.

The complaint includes the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, and the State of Illinois as respondents in discovery and seeks discovery from those entities regarding similar motor vehicle accidents in the past in the same area.

The case presents interesting issues regarding the standard of care applicable to design professionals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If people really bought into the adage that you can’t fight city hall, or at least the asserting-your-rights-against-a-state-seeking-to-infringe-on-them principle that it represents, we’d all be British subjects. In truth, we’d be a lot of things, likely all the same things given the unusual mandate authority consistently seems to have for homogeny. But this post isn’t a lesson about the Shakman decrees or the recent end of the Chicago Desegregation order or any other lesson in the history of fighting city hall. It’s a new chapter in the fight and it involves challenging public works projects... anyone thinking they might need to fight city hall or challenge bid awards when Chicago’s 2016 Olympic dreams are realized will want to bone up on the proper procedures for fighting city hall… which is what today’s case is all about.

The plaintiff’s in Ziller v. Rossi (Doc. Nos. 2-09-0511 and 2-09-0592) were fighting town hall, literally… they wanted to keep it from being built, and based on their town board’s inadequate notices for the issues to be discussed at town meetings and improper requests for funding in light of pending requests to present the issues to the electors of Grafton Township, they were successful. 

The board was attempting to enter into lengthy installment contracts and pledge public funds in excess of $3.5 million in debt certificates in order to purchase land and construct a new town hall. Plaintiffs were a group of individuals who sought to challenge the board’s authority for the action given the board’s failure to follow the proper statutory procedures and rules for acting in such a manner.

In 2007 and in 2008, the board had voted to purchase land for, and construct, the town hall, but had failed to properly place notification of these actions on the notice of the meeting that was required to be distributed prior to the meetings. They had also passed an ordinance in a similar manner for financing the projects. The plaintiffs challenged the action and sought an injunction from the court to stop the board from taking any steps towards purchasing the land, financing the purchase, entering into construction contracts for the town hall, or constructing the town hall because the notices for the meetings were in violation of the Illinois Township Code (60 ILCS 1/1 et seq.).

In addition to claiming that the board had violated the Township Code and that because of the violation, the boards actions were void, the plaintiff’s also followed the code and submitted their own petition to submit the town hall issue to the electorate during an election rather than allowing the town board to vote on the matter and bind the citizens. (In addition to other issues, the town code allows citizens to submit petitions requiring that question of constructing a town hall, be put to the electorate during the general election and not decided by the town board when appropriate). The plaintiffs sought a second injunction compelling the clerk to certify the question in their petition to the proper election officials to be submitted to the electorate at the general election.

The trial court granted the plaintiff’s request for an injunction and told the board that it could not obligate the township and that its previous actions had not comported with the requirements of the township code and required clerk to certify the question. The town board appealed the decision and the appellate court’s opinion upheld the decision of the trial court. The township code must be followed and the petition should be submitted to the electorate for a vote.

Few issues are as publicly contentious as the use of common property, this is why the procedures for addressing these issues are so heavily detailed in statute. The greater guidance for public deliberation and decision regarding the commons, the less chance a party has to feel like they were not given a voice and heard… This assumes the procedures were followed. When the procedures aren’t followed, not only is it more likely that trouble will result, it is more likely that someone is attempting to assert their rights over another and that the assertion may not be entirely justified or proper.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An interesting issue we’ve been coming across in contract negotiations over the past few months are the different retainage mandates of the states for private and public contracts. Most states have statutes affecting the amount of retainage permissible in public contracting, and some states have laws governing the amount of retainage allowed in contractual arrangement for private agreements.

What’s fascinating about the different laws regarding retainage is that they evince the true spirit of a republic with the different states acting much like the laboratories Justice Brandeis contemplated in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann.  Some states fashion their laws to protect owners, some to protect contractors, some even attempt to protect subcontractors and owners.

In Illinois there is no construction law for private contracts regarding retainage, but there is the recently proposed amendment to the Contractor Prompt Payment Act, that we’ve posted about before. For public contracts, the Illinois Statutes don’t specify a percentage, but based on certain amounts for the public construction of highways, the state may place funds with an Illinois financial entity if the retainage is over $20,000 and the parties agree. Funds can be withheld at the request of a contractor/sub. For Highway projects, the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction dictates terms for retainage.

Wisconsin statutes list a maximum percentage of 5% on public contracts and, like many of the retainage statutes for public contracts, states that no funds can be retained after 50% of the work is complete along with terms for additional retainage for nonsatisfactory progress. There is no Wisconsin statute for retainage on private projects.

In Michigan, the statutes for retainage on public contracts cap the amount at 10% and there is no law regarding private retainage.

Ohio has retainage set at a maximum rate of 8% under the Ohio Revised Code  and mandates the escrow of the funds with interest falling to the contractor.

Minnesota has a public project limitation of 5%. Minnesota also has a private project construction law statute that allows an owner to keep up to 5% but does not allow for retainage for residential improvements nor is the owner allow to retain funds from an architect, or for other professional services.

Iowa has a public limitation of 5% of the labor and materials.

The retainage statutes outside the Midwest with provisions for private contracts generally deal with either limiting retainage percentages or with specifying to whose benefit interest on retained funds will run.

As with any transaction, where the different incentives rest is important.  The question of which party is receiving the benefit of an agreement to retain funds until some future contractually agreed term is met is also varied. Statues like Alabama’s (§8-29-3), provide that retained funds produce interest for the subcontractor while the benefit of retaining monies to ensure proper performance accrues to the contractor/owner. 

Texas’ Property Code regulates retainage on private contracts through its mechanic’s lien statute. This method is novel and makes sense by allowing the retainage on the owner’s end while also protecting the owner and any possibly affected subcontractors by ensuring that some funds are at least set aside in case a contractor fails to pay monies through to its subs.

Some states like California and Vermont provide for explicit release dates if retainage has been held back, but make no determinations regarding percentages. Interestingly, none of the 50 states has any egregious conditions for retainage or a law that clearly favors one party to the transaction over the other.

Given the plethora of statutes concerning the matter, it’s best to check for the particular state legislation before deciding to include or exclude a retainage provision and such a provisions specific terms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Take a look at that beautiful aerial of Chicago’s City Hall from the Cook County Assessor’s Interactive Mapping Site (the left side with the beautiful garden, that’s it… the right side that’s simply roof… that’s the county’s side). It has a Property Identification Number (PIN), it can be located, but you can’t lien it - it’s public property.

More pertinent to today’s discussion is this:

The Irving Park Brown Line stop… again, a public space, recently renovated and again, you can’t lien it… it’s public.  Anyone getting ready to work on building projects for Chicago's hopeful 2016 Olympic bid will want to familiarize themselves with ways to get paid for public works projects.

Section 23 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act governs the application of the act to public projects, or rather, to the public funds behind the public project. The distinction is important because unlike a regular action, Section 23 only allows a person performing work for someone who has a contract with the public entity (or someone in the chain of such contracts – but certainly not those entities contracting directly with the public body) who has performed work on a public project to place a lien on public funds dedicated to that project… and only on those funds that haven’t been disbursed by the time it notifies the public entity in charge of the project that it is claiming a lien.

Time is of the essence in exercising your mechanics lien rights on these public funds. You need to get the notice on file as soon as possible so there will still be a chance that funds are left, and then you’ll be forced to file a court action within 90 days after your notice is received or you will lose the rights. An attorney can walk you through the process, but suffice it to say, timing is important, and so is getting the notice right.

To that end, today’s case involves exactly such a lien for work done on the Brown Line Renovation Project mentioned above. Here is a copy of the complaint. EMCO Metalworks is suing the CTA and McHugh for foreclosure of its mechanics lien on the public funds and for breach of contract. The electronic case docket can be found here.

The complaint will be informative not only for the pleading, but also for the notice provided as Exhibit C.

The lessons about timing and making sure you’re ready cannot be overlooked when you know you will be filing suit within 90 days of the notice if you have not been paid.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s our goal to make sure you have the greatest resources at your fingertips for operating competitively and effectively in the business. We’d be remiss if you didn’t get to see the Current Government Contracting Developments Blog. It really doesn’t get clearer or more concise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Illinois Attorney General’s office announced yesterday that a Cook County grand jury returned an indictment for Castle Construction Co., in Markham, Il. The announcement from the AG’s office is here.

The indictment centers on an alleged scheme to defraud the City of Chicago and the CTA in two publics works contracts by concealing or misrepresenting the actual amounts of the public funds that went to minority owned businesses.

From the AG’s release:

“In January 2006, Castle Construction allegedly obtained a $9.8 million construction contract from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to upgrade bus and train washing facilities at three CTA locations. As a condition of the contract, Castle Construction agreed to employ a minority business as a subcontractor. To fulfill this condition, Castle Construction represented to the CTA that it had entered into a $2.96 million subcontract with a minority business, Mid-City. According to the indictment, the Mid-City contract was actually $550,000. Also according to the indictment, from May 2006 to May 2007, Castle Construction and Blum presented the CTA with sworn statements in which they misrepresented the amount of work that Mid-City had performed on the project. On reliance on those sworn statements and other documentation, the CTA issued checks to Castle Construction, which included payment for work supposedly done by Mid-City.”

“In March 2007, Castle Construction signed a $9 million contract with the City of Chicago Public Building Commission to construct a fire station on North Clark Street and allegedly represented that minority-owned businesses would perform 26 percent of the work on the project. According to the indictment, Castle Construction falsely stated that it had signed a $1.5 million subcontract with GAG Masonry, Inc., a minority-owned firm. In fact, Castle Construction had entered into a contract with a different, non-minority-owned business to do masonry work on the North Clark Street project. According to the indictment, during the fall of 2007, Castle Construction and Blum presented the Public Building Commission with sworn statements in which they misrepresented the amount of work that GAG Masonry had performed on the project. In reliance on those sworn statements and other documentation, the Public Building Commission issued checks to Castle Construction, which included payment for work supposedly done by GAG Masonry.”

Several other news outlets have picked up this story and are reporting on it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Check your bids… Double-check your bids… Triple-check your bids.

In a suit over a $244,600,000 project, the Appellate Court ruled in this case that the failure to include a copy of the MWRDGC’s Affirmative Action Ordinance’s required “Utilization Plan” with the bid is a material failure which allowed the rejection of the applying joint-venture’s low bid and the award of the contract to the next-highest bidder.

That’s right. The opinion again reemphasizes the law that a minor variance between the submitted bid documents and what is required will not require the rejection of the proposed bid but a “material” variance will require rejection.

The elaboration on what is material is best left to the circumstances of each case, but we know from this opinion that leaving out a signed form that would bind the bidder to its listed subcontracts allowed for an unequal bargaining power between bid-submitters that was material. The argument is that without the signed form, a bidder could try to walk away from its contracts with the subs or renegotiate them – an option that those bidders signing and submitting the form with the entire contract would not have.

Interestingly, the court also noted that the failure to submit the form created an issue about whether a contract was even formed given that there would be no acceptance of the offer put forth by the MWRDGC when the offer included the need to submit the form. The court found that the failure to comply with all the terms of the offer was not an acceptance of the offer but rather, technically, a rejection of the offer and submission of the bid without the required form was the proposition of a counter-offer.

The first justification for upholding the award of the contract to the next-lowest bidder (one that did comply with the contract terms and submitted the proper forms) is one we’ve all seen before. The second justification is a bit different. It relates to the law of actual contract formation and brings into the arguments over the rejection of public-bids an entirely new justification, that, while always present in contract law, is not the limited notion of “material v. minor” that we are used to in bid disputes.

In any event – making sure you’ve complied with the full terms of the bid process is always a good idea.

The opinion can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A good document retention policy is a must and tailoring it to anyone involved in Illinois’ construction industry is an important part of its creation. With the advent of electronic discovery we all need to be aware of just how much we’re deleting when we erase files. In a fun article over at Law.com, Craig Ball has challenged the Gutmann method (that you need to overwrite your hard drive 35 times to completely erase data). The reality will be fascinating to those of you interested in making sure erased files stay erased.

In a suit filed in Cook County, the developer of the Palmolive Building (seen below) has sued its architecture firm for money that it may be forced to pay in arbitration with Pepper Construction in an arbitration action brought by Pepper against the developer. A copy of the complaint is here.

For those of you wondering why those forum selection clauses are so important, given that Illinois law mandates that construction contracts for project in Illinois be litigated in Illinois under Illinois law… Here’s a complaint filed by FC Stone against former clients who brought a suit in California despite a forum selection clause in their contracts. The suit is for the monies FC Stone had to expend to enforce the forum selection clause in the California court. Paying attention to both the Illinois law and the forum selection clause in contracts can help avoid such a challenge.

The Hartford is suing Grace Electrical Construction for close to $1.8 million that it had to pay out on bonds because Grace allegedly failed to perform. Under the Illinois Public Construction Bond Act (30 ILCS 550) Grace was required to obtain the bonds, but Hartford alleges that it has received more than $2.5 million in claims on the bonds that Grace was responsible for and has paid out the $1.8 million to settle those claims. The complaint can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With all the talk recently of Ethics in State Government and the recently enacted mandates about State Contracting, we thought we would take the time to inform our readers about the topic.

Illinois law, (Public Act 95-971; 10 ILCS 5/9-35; 30 ILCS 500/20-160 and 30 ILCS 500/50-37) requires that vendors register with the State Board of Elections; requires that a copy of the registration with the Board of Elections be submitted with bids/proposals for State contracts; and requires contract certifications of State Vendors; and restricts political contributions to State Officers and Congressional Representatives by State Vendors and their affiliated entities.

a.            The Brief Timeline of the Act

In an effort to establish new restrictions on campaign contributions and solicitations for contract awards by state contractors and bidders, Governor Rod Blagojevich issued Executive Order Number 3 on August 26, 2008. The intention of the Executive Order was the enhancement of transparency in the State procurement process and to ensure that the award of State contracts is based solely upon price, quality, service and other merit-based factors. “What all State vendors need to know about new ethics requirements” Fact Sheet, Illinois Department of Central Management Services, accessed February 24, 2009.

Following the Governor’s lead, the Illinois Legislature passed its own version of the Executive Order into law on September 25, 2008, as Public Act 095-0917. The Executive Order contains restrictions that appear to be broader than the Act. The effect of passing the Act into law was to take an Order that could otherwise have been rescinded by a successive Governor and turn it into a law that arguably, is less stringent than the order.

The Act and Executive Order took effect January 1, 2009.

b.            The Entities Impacted By the Act

The Act and Order basically apply to any for profit entity or an affiliated entity of a for profit entity in the State of Illinois that has bids or proposals on State Contracts exceeding $50,000; is awarded State Contracts exceeding $50,000; or a combination thereof exceeding $50,000.  

Under the Act, State Contracts are contracts with any State Agency including all boards, commissions, agencies, institutions, authorities, and bodies politic and corporate of the State, created by or in accordance with the Illinois Constitution or State Statute, of the executive branch of State government and includes, colleges, universities, public employee retirement systems, and institutions under the jurisdiction of the governing boards of the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, Illinois State University, Eastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, Western Illinois University, Chicago State University, Governors State University, Northeastern Illinois University, and the Illinois Board of Higher Education. 30 ILCS 500/50-37.

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 3 the following and their boards of directors/governors are also included:

Capital Development Board

Department on Aging

Department of Agriculture

Department of Central Management Services

Department of Children and Family Services

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

Department of Corrections

Department of Employment Security

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

Department of Healthcare and Family Services

Department of Human Rights 

Department of Human Services

Department of Juvenile Justice

Department of Labor

Department of Military Affairs

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Public Health

Department of Revenue

Department of State Police

Department of Transportation

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

Guardianship and Advocacy Commission

Historic Preservation Agency

Illinois Arts Council

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Illinois Finance Authority

Illinois Housing Development Authority

Illinois Investment and Development Authority

Illinois Power Agency

State Fire Marshal

“A State contract is any type of agreement between a State agency and a business entity that is governed by the Illinois Procurement Code, including contracts for the procurement, use or disposal of supplies, services, professional or artistic services. A State contract also includes construction contracts, leases of real property, or capital improvements contracts, including master contracts, contracts for financing through use of installment or lease-purchase arrangements, renegotiated contracts and change orders. State contracts governed by the new ethics requirements do not include cost reimbursement contracts; purchase of care contracts as defined by Section 1-15.68 of the Illinois Procurement Code; grants, including but not limited to grants for job training or transportation; and grants, loans or tax credit agreements for economic development purposes.” Illinois Department of Central Management Services Fact Sheet.

The Act also applies to any affiliated entities of those entities covered by the Act. The Act defines affiliated entities as:

“i) any subsidiary of the bidding or contracting business entity, (ii) any member of the same unitary business group, (iii) any organization recognized by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a tax‑exempt organization described in Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or any successor provision of federal tax law) established by the bidding or contracting business entity, any affiliated entity of that business entity, or any affiliated person of that business entity, or (iv) any political committee for which the bidding or contracting business entity, or any 501(c) organization described in item (iii) related to that business entity, is the sponsoring entity.” 30 ILCS 500/50-37.

If an entity questions the Act’s applicability the following examples from the State of Illinois Fact Sheet in assessing the matter are helpful:

c.             The Requirements and Restrictions Placed on Those Affected by The Act

Executive Order Number 3 (2008) and Public Act 095-0971 place requirements and restrictions on their affiliated entities and all affiliated persons. 

An Affiliated Person is described under the act as:

“(i) any person with an ownership interest or distributive share of the entiy or an Affiliated Entity in excess of 7.5%, (ii) an executive employee of the entity or an Affiliated Entity, or (iii) the spouse or minor child of anyone covered by (i) or (ii).” 30 ILCS 500/50-37

Any qualifying business entity is required to register with the State Board of Elections pursuant to the Illinois Election Code 10 ILCS 5/9-35. Any qualifying entity must submit certification to the State procurement officer in charge of its qualifying contracts stating that it has registered and it must provide proof of registration when bidding on future contracts pursuant to the Illinois Procurement Code 30 ILCS 500/20-160. Any business entity, affiliated person or affiliated entity is prohibited from making political contributions as described in the Illinois Procurement Code 30 ILCS 500/50-37.    

1.            REGISTRATION

Pursuant to the Act and Executive Order Number 3, all qualifying entities were required to register with the State Board of Elections by January 31, 2009. If an entity has not registered with the State Board of Elections, the directions for registration may be found at:

http://www.elections.il.gov/BusinessRegistration/RegistrationProcess.aspx

And the proper form for registration may be found:

http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/BusinessRegistration/PDF/BEREPForm.pdf

The form must be completed and submitted to the State Board of Elections as described in the directions. The form must include the information regarding all “affiliated entities” and all “affiliated persons” for the entity.

After registration, the Board of Elections is required to provide a “certificate of registration” to the entity. The statute mandates that this certificate will be electronic and accessible through the State of Illinois Board of Elections website. However, the Board currently lacks the resources to fulfill this provision, thus, it is currently time-stamping copies of the first page of the registration forms and returning them to the registering entity to serve as the certificates of registration. State Board of Elections, BEREP Procedures website (last accessed February 24, 2009).  Here's a little more on this topic from the Illinois Issues Blog.

2.            CERTIFICATION

The Act imposes some affirmative duties on qualifying entities and their affiliates regarding the certification of its registration including:

I.             Within 10 days of registration, the entity must provide a copy of the certificate to each affiliated entity and affiliated person disclosed in the registration form.

II.                  The entity must notify all political committees to which it contributes, at the time of contribution, that it is registered with the State Board of Elections. Each of the entity’s affiliated entities or affiliated persons must also notify the political committees to which they contribute, at the time of contribution, that they are affiliated with the entity, which is registered.

III.                Every bid or proposal submitted by the entity for a State Contract after January 1, 2009, must be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of registration received after registration has been sent to the Board of Elections.

IV.                Every State Contract the entity receives after January 1, 2009, should contain a statement that the entity has registered as a business entity with the State Board of Elections and acknowledging the entity’s continuing duty to update its registration. The contracts will also include a statement that the contract is voidable for the entity’s failure to update its registration.

V.                  By March 31, 2009, the entity must submit a copy of the certificate of registration all of the applicable chief procurement officer(s) for the entity’s contract(s):

There are 5 Chief Procurement Officers for the State. 

·         For contracts for vertical construction or vertical construction-related services, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Executive Director of the Capital Development Board.

·         For contracts for highway construction or highway construction-related services, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation.

·         For contracts for procurements made by a public institution of higher education, the Chief Procurement Officer is designated by each public institution of higher education.

·         For contracts for procurements made by the Illinois Power Agency, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Director of the Illinois Power Agency.

·         For all other procurements, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Director of the Department of Central Management Services.

VI.                The entity has a continuing duty to ensure that the registration is accurate, and must report any change in information to the State Board of Elections within the time periods set forth in Public Act 95-0971. Notify the BOE within 10 days of any change if a contract is in place, within 2 days of any change if a bid or proposal is pending.

VII.              The entity has a duty to keep the registration information up to date for 2 years following the completion of any State Contract.

3.            ENTITY’S and AFFILIATE’S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION RESTRICTIONS

                The Act and Executive Order Number 3 impose some restrictions on the entity, its affiliated entities and affiliated persons contributions to political campaigns. The following restrictions appear to apply to all three groups:

I.                    Contributions cannot be made to any political committees established to promote the candidacy of the officeholder responsible for awarding any of the contracts the entity currently has or bids on. From the time of the term of office of the officeholder to 2 years following the expiration of the contract, whichever period is longer.

II.                  Contributions cannot be made to any candidate for the office responsible for awarding contracts that entity currently has or bids on. For 2 years following the completion of the contracts.

For the purposes of these rules, the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller and Treasurer are the responsible officeholders for the contracts awarded by their agencies. For all other contracts awarded by executive branch state agencies, the Governor is considered the responsible officeholder. 

Additionally, if the contract or bid is with one of the above listed executive branch agencies, Executive Order No. 3 prohibits:

III.                The entity and its affiliates cannot solicit a political contribution on behalf of or make a political contribution to any State office or declared candidate for state office or any political party. Note: this apparently includes any member of the general assembly and any other state office. These restrictions are in place for two years after the contract ends or until the bid is awarded.

IV.                The entity will be required to certify that no such contributions have been made.

d.            The Penalties Provided Under the Act and Executive Order

                In addition to the monetary penalties already delineated for the failure to register. Any Contract awarded to an entity that fails to comply with the Act may be rescinded by the awarding agency or the State, without recourse to the contract recipient.

                The Act imposes further monetary penalties of $1001.00 dollars for the failure to notify the entity’s affiliated entities and affiliated persons of registration.

                If an entity violates the requirements of the Act 3 or more times within a 36-month period, then all contracts between the State and that entity shall be voided and the entity shall not bid for any State contract for 3 years from the date of the last violation.

                Any political committee that receives or has received a contribution in violation of the Act shall pay an amount equal to the value of the contribution to the Sate within 30 days of receiving notice of the violation.

                If a political contribution is inadvertently made in violation of the Executive Order, then the entity may request full reimbursement from the receiving entity. Any contributions made within 60 days of a gubernatorial primary or general election are not considered inadvertent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stimuluswatch.org is reporting on the stimulus package and the projects proposed for Illinois. A link to the Illinois projects is here. The database is searchable and includes the localities, descriptions of the projects and the amounts proposed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link