The Watson case has been troublesome. The court manifests hostility towards post

Question

The Watson case has been troublesome. The court manifests hostility towards post-completion claims for extras by contractors on small jobs. The time span of a construction contract and the flexibility needed in design make changes inevitable. Yet the court seems hard on the contractor. It imposes administrative requirements both in terms of those needed in the field and those needed if disputes arise before the contractor can recover for changes. The contractor in such a job might be better to add a contingency in the price to cover small extras that are likely to be requested rather than to comply with the formal requirements.

Describe another alternative to the changes process on small projects . Why is this an improvement? What are the downsides?

Explanation / Answer

The another alternative can be mid cost submission of varying structures that would have to be put up in between the project different form the main project the contractor has established with the firm or government. Such type of mechanism will help contractor to have some flexibility during duration of project as well as the cost incurred in such variations will be covered in the final project payments. It will fulfill the contractor’s obligation as well as firms or government will have all records of varying costs incurred and thus final payment receipt will be defect free. This improvement will help both contractors as well as governments to make minor alterations between project periods.

The downsides of such improvements is that the main project can sometime deviate from its original structure and also contractors can use this as a tool to increase the cost of the project and also in delaying the completion of projects on time.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.