Common use of Subconsultants Clause in Contracts

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer shall look only to the Architectural Designer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural Designer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer Design Professional shall look only to the Architectural Designer Design Professional for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerDesign Professional. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerDesign Professional, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerDesign Professional. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9X.X. 0, NoXx. 6 0 (53 P.S. 00 X.X. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358X.X. 000, NoXx. 57 00 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Design Professional nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73X.X. 00, NoXx. 7 0 (73 P.S. 00 X.X. §501 000 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Design Professional nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer MEP Engineer shall look only to the Architectural Designer MEP Engineer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerMEP Engineer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerMEP Engineer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerMEP Engineer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer MEP Engineer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer MEP Engineer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer shall look only to the Architectural Designer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural Designer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer Commissioning Agent shall look only to the Architectural Designer Commissioning Agent for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerCommissioning Agent. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerCommissioning Agent, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerCommissioning Agent. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30X.X. 00, NoXx. 14 00 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9X.X. 0, NoXx. 6 0 (53 P.S. 00 X.X. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358X.X. 000, NoXx. 57 00 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §§3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Commissioning Agent nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73X.X. 00, NoXx. 7 0 (73 P.S. 00 X.X. §501 000 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Commissioning Agent nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer shall look only to the Architectural Designer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural Designer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment Invoices and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer Construction Cost Consultant shall look only to the Architectural Designer Construction Cost Consultant for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerConstruction Cost Consultant. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerConstruction Cost Consultant, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment Invoices and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerConstruction Cost Consultant. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9X.X. 0, NoXx. 6 0 (53 P.S. 00 X.X. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358X.X. 000, NoXx. 57 00 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Construction Cost Consultant nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73X.X. 00, NoXx. 7 0 (73 P.S. 00 X.X. §501 000 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Construction Cost Consultant nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer shall look only to the Architectural Designer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural Designer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment Invoices and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer shall look only to the Architectural Designer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural Designer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30X.X. 00, NoXx. 14 00 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9X.X. 0, NoXx. 6 0 (53 P.S. 00 X.X. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358X.X. 000, NoXx. 57 00 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73X.X. 00, NoXx. 7 0 (73 P.S. 00 X.X. §501 000 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer MEP & FP Engineer shall look only to the Architectural Designer MEP & FP Engineer for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerMEP & FP Engineer. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerMEP & FP Engineer, except as may otherwise be required by law. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment Invoices and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerMEP & FP Engineer. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school district” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school district” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9X.X. 0, NoXx. 6 0 (53 P.S. 00 X.X. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358X.X. 000, NoXx. 57 00 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer MEP & FP Engineer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school district” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73X.X. 00, NoXx. 7 0 (73 P.S. 00 X.X. §501 000 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer MEP & FP Engineer nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.

Subconsultants. The Construction Manager shall ensure by legally enforceable contracts with its Subconsultants that the Subconsultants of the Architectural Designer Construction Manager shall look only to the Architectural Designer Construction Manager for payment, satisfaction, or legal redress in the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract, and hereby waive any claim or cause of action against the School District arising out of a Subcontract or other transaction with the Architectural DesignerConstruction Manager. The School District shall have no obligation to pay nor or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural Designer, except as may otherwise be required by lawConstruction Manager. Nothing contained in Paragraph 6.3, Applications for Payment Invoices and Subconsultant Payment Confirmation, shall give rise to any duty on the part of the School District to pay or to see to the payment of any monies to any Subconsultant of the Architectural DesignerConstruction Manager. The School District of Philadelphia is a “distressed school districtSchool District” under the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14 (24 P.S. §6-691) and a “first class school districtSchool District” under the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Act for Cities of the First Class (known as “PICA Act”), Act of June 5, 1991, P.L. 9, No. 6 (53 P.S. § 12720.104), and therefore the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law, Act of December 12, 1994, P.L. 1042, No. 142 (73 P.S. §§1626.8(c)(2)&(4)) (repealed), and the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions, Act of May 15, 1998, P.L. 358, No. 57 (62 Pa.C.S.A. §3938(b)(2)&(4)), do not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, or demolition of its buildings or improvements of any kind to its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Construction Manager nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the prompt payment provisions of the Award and Execution of Public Contracts Law (repealed), or the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, General Procurement Provisions. The School District of Philadelphia is also a “school districtSchool District” and a “political subdivision” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Act of February 17, 1994, P.L. 73, No. 7 (73 P.S. §501 et seq.), does not apply to the School District of Philadelphia and its contracts for work or improvements on its real properties. Neither the Architectural Designer Construction Manager nor its Subconsultants can make, assert or file a claim, cause of action or lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia for violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. The conditions set forth in this Paragraph 8.2 shall be set forth in any contract between the Construction Manager and any of its Subconsultants with regard to any of the Services under this Contract.