 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
gonewtwind
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 04:18 am |
|
If the contractor submits a claim, stating that he had to spend extra time and money to clean up unforeseen debris from the site, however, the claim is submitted after the debris had been cleaned up and the architect do his/her investigation to verify this condition, what should the architect do with this claim?
thanks.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 4266 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Mailbox watcher for CSE report |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:10 am |
|
| The GC is obligated to communicate unforseen or concealed detrimental conditions upon discovery.
|
el_capitano
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 12:15 am |
|
I think it’s a darn good question and worth massaging the brain. I would say now that the GC has cleaned up the site he has no way of proving his claim, so too bad for him, he has to absorb the costs.
Generally, however, when he makes a claim about an unexpected discovery, the first the architect would do is asking him to send a documentation about his discovery. Then the architect would immediately inform the owner and advise him to tell the GC to top the work on that portion of the site until the owner, the owner's agent or his special consultant visit the site and make an assessment.
The owner might ask the architect to visit the site for this kind of situation. But I think since the site and existing conditions are all the responsibility of the owner, the architect facing such a request from the owner should ask him to send his agent to the site also. The architect must reduce or totally eliminate his chances of liabilities.
Anybody got any other ideas?
|
soulmatic09
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 229 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | LICENSED!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 12:27 am |
|
reject the claim.
the contractor is required to go to the site and observe the site prior to bidding; it never should have been a surprise.
further, any inconsistencies should have been brought up by an RFI or change order, not as a claim after the fact.
there is also a time limit regarding claims, after a number of days, the claim becomes invalid (i think) depending on the dates, this would invalidate the claim.
|
gonewtwind
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
thanks folks, all your responses are really helpful.
since the question is about unforseen condition, I guess I'll assume that the contractor really didn't know. However, since he had already cleaned up the evidence, I was thinking I'll return the claim as inconclusive.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 4266 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Mailbox watcher for CSE report |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 02:20 am |
|
soulmatic09 wrote: reject the claim.
the contractor is required to go to the site and observe the site prior to bidding; it never should have been a surprise. The question involves unforeseen conditions. You should not assume the site visit was not made. It's not unusual for weeks to go by between jobwalk, bid and commencement. further, any inconsistencies should have been brought up by an RFI or change order, not as a claim after the fact. I agree. Depending onthe situation, if the contractor documented the condition and took care of it to keep the job on track, I would say that he acted in good faith. After all, it was just debris removal. However, by acting without communicating and getting prior approval, he eliminated the owner's options. Since the work had to be done, the owner must pay; however, he also had the right to do it himself. So, the costs are negotiable.
|
vhd
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:11 am |
|
soulmatic09 wrote: reject the claim.
the contractor is required to go to the site and observe the site prior to bidding; it never should have been a surprise. Agree. All other response discuss for unforeseen conditions such as water or oil barrel discovered during excavation.
further, any inconsistencies should have been brought up by an RFI or change order, not as a claim after the fact.
there is also a time limit regarding claims, after a number of days, the claim becomes invalid (i think) depending on the dates, this would invalidate the claim.
|
Current time is 04:32 am | |
|
|
|
|
