CASE 51: CONCRETE WALLS

This case involves a lack of information and written statements within the bidding process and contract execution. A company is selected as the GC for a project and the contract doesn’t differentiate the GC from the subcontractors. The GC decides to bid out a concrete package and has 3 subcontractors within 3% of each other. The scope of work includes rebar installation, concrete placement, and slab finishing. The GC has an interview with the lowest bidder before awarding them the project to make sure they understand the scope of work. The subcontractors bid didn’t reference any drawing but during the interview the GC ask if all concrete is shown in both structural and architectural drawings, they say yes. This was documented in the pre awarding notes but were not a part of the subcontractor’s agreement. The GC hires the subcontractor and two weeks later, the subcontractor calls inquiring why the reference was made to the architectural drawing. They remind the contractor about the meeting but this should have raised some red flag for the GC. Another two week later, the subcontractor sign and mail back the subcontract but crosses out the reference to “concrete work shown on drawings.” There are several concrete walls shown in the architectural drawing but not in the structural drawings. The subcontract refuses to accept the subcontract as originally written, and does not want to install the walls unless a change order is issued. In order to solve this issue, the GC should have never accepted any bid without carefully notating the drawings that would be included and used for work. They should have reviewed the architectural and structural drawings for accuracy. It was never in the subcontractors bid to make sure that the drawing was correct because the drawing wasn’t specified and notated before the contract was awarded the GC is to blame.

Bryan Gonzalez