Written by Cathy Altman, Partner
Welcome to CCSB’s construction law blog. Our aim is simple:
to offer clear, practical legal guidance to support owners, developers, and
construction professionals deliver projects on time, on budget, and with fewer
disputes.
We believe that bolstering the technical expertise and
skills of the project team with a sound legal framework—well‑drafted contracts,
thoughtful risk allocation, and solutions‑focused dispute management—improves
project outcomes for all stakeholders.
We’ll use this space to translate legal concepts into usable
tools for the field and the boardroom.
Our focus is on helping teams build better relationships,
better processes, and better outcomes to avoid litigation. But we know that
many factors affect the likelihood of project success, so we’ll also share experience-driven
insights for those who find themselves in the courtroom.
Learning from the Field: Utility Coordination in
Infrastructure Projects
We begin with highlights from the Construction Super
Conference, where Carrington Coleman partner Cathy Altman joined panelists to
discuss coordination and collaboration supporting utility relocation on infrastructure
projects. Lessons learned from projects in high‑growth corridors around the
country confirm that challenges with utility conflicts and relocations can have
enormous impacts on schedules and budgets. Three practices to mitigate those
risks stand out:
Start early and be strategic. Involve utility owners
at the planning stage, not after design is “done.” Many utilities operate with
aging or poorly mapped assets, complex regulatory constraints, and operational
limits that don’t flex—certainly not on short notice.
Early, candid conversations identify conflicts before they
become costly, and they reduce the frustrations that disrupt collaboration.
Budget for reality. Utility relocations and upgrades
take time and money. Underestimating either is a common source of conflict.
Build on the information gathered in step one to include informed time and cost
contingencies, rather than wishful thinking or pass the buck approaches.
Make the contract speak plainly. Allocate risks and
responsibilities in clear terms to avoid the ambiguity that invites
finger‑pointing. Clarity gives the parties a workable roadmap for adjustments
and a faster path to resolve disputes. Openly discuss which party is best
positioned, in expertise and resources, to mitigate and control risks. Consider
statutory and common‑law constraints that may limit your ability to allocate
risk by contract in some jurisdictions.
