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.
There were many issues in this case study from the start. The owner contracted a GC for the construction and a separate Architect for the design. After they got the permit, the architect’s contract was closed out. This was a bad decision made by the owner because he lacked knowledge about the industry and it was his first construction project, usually the architect can help with those issues. The contract was made by the contractor at discussed in detail what was reimbursable but did not tie the GC to a fixed price. The $3 million was referred to as a “budget” in the contract. This meant that a change in price could happen. The Owner thought because of verbal discussion with the contractor prior to the contract execution, that the $3 million was a lump sum agreement. The meant that the owner didn’t read and understand the contract and thought what was said verbally was the final amount. During construction changes had to be made because of building code. The contractor decided that the project was a Time and Material project and did not submit change order against the “budgeted” amount. The GC invoiced the owner for 100% amount of the original $3 million, at 90% completion. The GC tells the owner that the project would overrun $500,000. The owner doesn’t agree and wont pay and the contractor pulls off the job. I think that both are at fault for not making the contract clear and using verbal combination and what they believe is right, to continue construction. The owner didn’t understand the contract and the GC decided not to submit a change order. If the owner knew it was his first project, he should have not ended the architect’s contract. There was a lack of communication between the GC and owner.
After reading Case study 26: Historic Restoration, I discovered many problems with this case study. First as a professional, bring children to an important meeting with clients is very unprofessional. In my opinion, Bring a child to a meeting is very distracting and interferes with the design phase of the project. The second problem I discovered was hiring a contractor with no documented resume or any paperwork of evidence for the job. The third problem was that there was no drawings or requirements from the owner. To explain, there was no budget for the architect and contractor to work with during this project. Overall, everybody was to blame because there was a lack of communication and professionalism.
After reading this case study I took a few things from it. A lot of mistakes were happening early on with construction that the General Contractor was aware of, so the GC should’ve stopped the work before wasting more money. There has been a lot of miscommunication between all the workers that could’ve been avoided. Since the GC didn’t stop the work, there’s going to be more money and more work to be done. There was also a point where the architect forgot to attach a directional document, so again the GC should’ve stopped the work, but didn’t. Overall I think miscommunication between the GC and sub-contractors was a major issue and a simple solution was to just stop the work, gather all the workers and figure out what’s going on and inform the owner for further instruction.
After my company was selected as the GC for a 10-story office bldg, we sent out bids for the concrete package, and 3 subs have tight bids within 3% off each other. the scope of work includes framework, rebar, pour, and finish. the concrete and pump will be taken care of by my company.
after the lowest bidder was selected there was an interview conducted with the subcontractor to make sure the scope of work and schedule are covered. their bid did not reference any drawings, but in the interview, they mentioned that the concrete work was shown on both architectural and structural drawings. This was asked because there were some concrete housekeeping pads, and steel stair infill was shown on arch, drawings and wanted to make sure that it was picked up. The sub acknowledged this and notes on this were taken on pre-award meeting notes.
The contract was awarded and the agreement was sent around the time the work began. the sub calls back asking why there was a reference made to the arch. drawings and we remind him of the housekeeping pads and stair infill. 2 weeks later the sub sends the signed agreement but the reference to arch drawings is crossed out. several walls were shown on the arch drawings but not on the structural drawings.
An (RFI) is written and structural engineer responds with appropriate sketches, but the architect does not attach a directional document such as a (CCD) to the (RFI). As a result, the sub refuses to accept the contract as originally written, and will, not install the walls unless a change order is issued. the walls are worth $50K and my company or the sub don’t have the funds to make amends.
In this case, the bid from the subcontractor should not have been accepted in the first place without seeing their architectural and structural drawings to make sure that everything was being acknowledged. the sub should have also not crossed out the reference to the architectural drawings on the agreement and the architect should have attached a directional document. the architect, GC, and sub all share faults for not communicating properly. Although the owner was not involved directly, he would have to, unfortunately, put up money for the work to be done properly.
In this case, the main issue was that many agreements made between the client and the general contractor were only discussed verbally and not documented. In this case, the client contracted a GC and an Architect separately for the design of the $3 million executive home. Once the permit was approved, the architect’s contract was closed out.
In the contract, the GC discussed in details what could be reimbursable, but it did not tie the GC to a fixed price. In the contract, the $3 million were referred to as the “budget”. The owner assumed that this amount was the lump-sum agreement because of verbal discussions and early “bid” estimates prior to the contract agreement. During the project, many changes had to be made mostly due to building code.
The GC believed this was a (T&M) time and materials project, therefore he felt that paperwork for change orders on a budgeted amount was not necessary. at 90% completion, the GC invoiced the owner for the 100% payment and also indicated that the project would overrun $500K. The owner then refused to pay the GC. the GC then pulls off the job and will not complete the work until the owner pays off remanding $1 million and the additional $500K, at that point the GC is dismissed by the owner and both parties sue each other.
Legally I believe that firstly the GC cannot pull off a job. The GC is at fault for not completing his part of the contract and abandoning the job. However, the owner is also at fault for not contracting a third party owner’s rep or agency construction manager involved that would’ve helped him out as this was his first time being involved in a construction project. The GC is also at fault for not submitting or notifying the owner about the changes that had to be made due to the building code. In order to avoid this situation, there should have been a fixed price set and the architect’s contract should’ve not been closed out until final completion as he would’ve had control in the situation. In this case, I believe that the owner has to pay the GC the remaining $1 million from the contract, but the $500K should be the responsibility of the GC as he never notified the owner of ongoing changes to the project.
There are many problems with this situation and a lot of question determining who is responsible for what. Additionally, this question wasn’t too clear as in if the sprinkler heads were different in the aspect of performance from what architect had specified ie. sqft coverage. If they had different mechanical properties, the sprinklers must be removed and replaced with the appropriate ones and another inspection must be done. The general contractor is responsible for this mistake because it is his job to ensure the shop drawings reflect the architectural drawings. Additionally, because the general contractor is responsible, he too must pay for the fix. The general contractor should have verified the shop drawing were done as per architectural drawings. Additionally, the general contractor should have made sure the sub-contractor was installing the correct heads on the site.
Whats the situation of this case?
A three story building office is soon to be turnover (two weeks). However, after reviewing the punch list it was discover that the subcontractor installed different type of sprinkler head and within all three floors the subcontractor design it.
After looking at the case carefully it’s no doubt the General Contract fault, since he/she supervises whats documented. At this point it is not necessary to change the sprinkler heads since they work properly, but if it fails safety inspection, then it will be mandatory to change them.
Some of the issues that I encounter while reading case 54, was that the subcontractor had put different sprinkle heads on every floor. The Contractor didn’t specify what kind of sprinkler head was needed during the installation. When the owner came to inspect , he wasn’t satisfy that the sprinkler heads were different in every floor . In my point of view I think that the contractor has the fault for not specify to the subcontractor in the beginning of the project ,on what type of sprinkler head was needed. The contractor is responsible for checking the shop drawings and submittals. If they choose to change it , the contractor will have to pay for the expenses.
The sub-contractor installed different types of sprinkler heads on each floor in a three-story office building. The sub-contractor should have followed the drawings. It is discovered during the punch list, only two weeks before a turnover. The general contractor should also have caught it. The fire inspection remains. If the sprinkler system still works properly and the reason it was changed was for aesthetic reasons, then it will still pass the fire inspection. If the sprinklers have different patterns, do not spray the required amount of water, or have other issues than they will fail the fire inspection. In this case the sub-contractor would have to pay to replace the sprinklers. This issue should have been prevented. The general contractor should have supervised the sub-contractor better.