In December 2009, an Amendment to the D.C. Green Building Act of 2006 was introduced by the D.C. Council. Labeled the "Green Building Technical Corrections, Clarification, and Revision Amendment Act of 2009," this Amendment includes many revisions to the original Green Building Act. One of those revisions involves the "performance bond" requirement:
"’Sec. 6. Bond requirements.’.
(2) Section 6 is amended by striking the phrase ‘performance bond’ wherever it appears and inserting the word "bond" in its place."
That’s it. This feels anti-climatic. We have been discussing this same issue since the dawn of Green Building Law Update. Back on August 15, 2008, one of my very first posts pointed out the performance bond issue. So what does this fix?
1. Replacing "performance bond" with "bond" will eliminate the confusion that was certain to ensue in the construction and surety industry. Performance bonds guarantee a contractor will building according to the plans and specifications. Here, a developer has to guarantee that a project will achieve green building certification.
2. I still have concerns about the bigger issue of whether these "bonds" will be available. Bond instruments guaranteeing green building certification simply do not exist in the market. Maybe a surety will develop these bonds, maybe they will not.
In the end, I applaud the D.C. City Council for addressing the "performance bond" issue.
What do you think about this revision? Disaster averted?
Related Links: A Green Building Performance Bond (GBLU) The Green Building Unicorn (GBLU) Green Building Technical Corrections, Clarification, and Revision Amendment Act of 2009 (DC Council)(pdf)