Problem 1 - FACTS: A government repair and alteration contract required installi

Question

Problem 1 - FACTS: A government repair and alteration contract required installing new shower units to existing supply piping. Upon demolishing the shower wall, the contractor discovered that due to the location of the existing supply lines the contractor would have to remove and replace the pipes. The contractor, who had not attended the government’s pre-bid site visit, claimed a differing site condition and asserted that the condition would not have been visible at a site visit.

ISSUE: Is there a change? Is it compensable?

Would it affect your analysis to know that at the pre-bid site visit, the government removed a portion of the shower wall exposing the condition in question?

Problem 2 - FACTS:    Owner contracted with Associated Builders to covert an old restaurant into a motel. They provided the builder with detailed construction plans. The contract provided that Associated Builders would complete the work “on a Time and Material Basis at a cost not to exceed $60,000.

After work began, the local code enforcement officer expressed concern about whether the proposed construction plans would comply with the building codes dealing with structural support for roofs bearing snow loads. The Owner retained an engineer to evaluate the situation, and the engineer recommended modifications to the plans. As a result of the proposed modifications, some of the construction work that had already been completed had to be ripped out and redone. This significantly increased the scope and cost of the job to an estimated total job cost of $85,000. The Owner objected to paying more than $60,000 for the job and claimed that the contractor had agreed to waive its invoices for all amounts over the contract’s “not to exceed” amount.

Problem 3 - FACTS: The Contract states: “The cost of reasonable street sweeping services shall be considered included in the Contractor’s price.” During construction, the Owner’s project manager told the Contractor: “Sweep the streets at least three times each week, but sweep as many times as needed to keep them clean.” The project manager orally instructed the contractor to keep track of extra hours and materials, and said, "We’ll take care of the paperwork at the end of the job." The Contractor did the work, and prepared Foreman’s Daily Reports of the extra hours and materials and submitted them to the project manager on a weekly basis. The Contractor did not file a written notice of claim as required under the contract terms.

ISSUE: Is there a change? Is it compensable?

Explanation / Answer

1.

No, there is no change and it should not be compensable because contractor should visit pre-bid site visit and can raise the issue so that this thing can be included during bid process in a legalize way. Now, Government is not liable for it.

Yes, It will affect our analysis because then government is liable for the compensation and change in bid. This shows that there is lack of sharing of information from the government side which has been found on later stage or there is no complete clarity. If it is the issue of clarity then the contract can be created in such a way that such gaps can be taken care.

Author's Note: Please be specific to the question that need to be answered

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

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