In a previous post, GBLU referenced problems with a green building performance bond requirement in Washington D.C.’s Green Building Act. So what are the apparent problems with this green performance bond?
On August 13, 2007, the Surety and Fidelity Association of America and the National Association of Surety Bond Producers detailed the problems with the bond requirement, pointing out that the Act “includes bond requirements that, if not clarified significantly, may make sureties reticent to issue such bonds.” The SFAA and NASBP outlined several perceived problems with the Green Building Act’s performance bond requirement, including:
• The Act incorrectly uses the term “performance bond” as the bond described in the Act “seems to function more in the manner of a license or compliance bond, which typically guarantees compliance with a law or code.” A performance bond typically assures one party that another party will perform the contract in accordance with its terms and conditions.
• The Act does not designate which party is to furnish the performance bond. The letter argues that “the building owner or developer, as the originator of the building project that retains the design professional and contractor, hold the ultimate responsibility for whether the building achieves compliance with the Act’s requirements.”
The SFAA and NASBP’s primary concern with the Act is that contractors and performance bonds are improperly suited for guaranteeing green building compliance. The Government of D.C. so far has continued to incorporate the green performance bond in building codes and rules used to enforce the Green Building Act. September 2008 is going to be a big month in D.C. for green building codes and the green performance bond. GBLU will continue to keep you apprised.