The contract contains the following requirement: 1.9.17 Manufacturer\'s Recommen

Question

The contract contains the following requirement: 1.9.17 Manufacturer's Recommendations. In the event the Contract shall require that given Work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations or requirements, the CM/GC shall obtain for his use at the site in executing the work copies of the bulletin, circular, catalog, or other publication of the manufacturer bearing the title, number, addition, date, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "doctrine") designated in the Contract. In the event no such designation appears in the Contract Documents, the CMlGC shall not proceed with the installation of the Work or materials until (1) he shall have requested from the Architect in writing (with copy of the request to the Owner) additional instructions pursuant to Article 1.9.14 as to title, number, addition, date, etc. of the bulletin, circular, catalog or other publication of the manufacturer which contains the manufacturer's published recommendations or requirements for installation and use of the product and (2) until he shall have received the aforesaid additional instructions. Prior to proceeding with the installation of the said work or materials, the CM/GC shall obtain for his use at the site and executing the work the "doctrine" designated in the said additional instructions of the Architect. The plans and specifications shall be adhered to in all cases where they call for quality of materials, quality of workmanship, or quality of construction that is equal to or in excess of the quality called for in the manufacturer's recommendations or requirements. There may be no deviations from the plans and specifications except to the extent that the said deviation shall be necessary in order to comply with the manufacturers express recommendations or express requirements. The cost for changes necessary to comply with the manufacturer's express recommendations or express requirements may be paid from the construction contingency or, if appropriate and agreed by Owner, from the design contingency. FACTS The Architect on an airport project creates a sprinkler specification that contains a general requirement for installation in conformance with the National Fire Protection Association and Factory Mutual standards and requirements. The specifications state that sprinkler head shall be located, spaced and position per NFPA 13, that the "hazard shall be light for terminals and concourses" and that the Contractor shall use "maximum permissible spacing" for sprinkler heads. Design density is required to be 0.15 gpm over 2,000 square feet. The contract drawing depicts 500 sprinkler heads. 2 During the preparation of the GMP, Amatrol received a verbal confirmation regarding a price from a sprinkler contractor. Amatrol utilized the number and had no additional money in the GMP for the sprinkler contractor. During the project, the project contingency is reduced to under $100,000. The contract contains liquidated damages of$10,000 per day. The sprinkler contractor submitted its shop drawings which showed a design density of 0.15 gpm over 2,000 square feet based on a light hazard. The subcontractor's shop drawings show 450 heads. The Project Manager is nervous regarding meeting Substantial Completion and receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, in an attempt to be proactive, the Project Manager is able to get an inspector to review the sprinklers prior to the request for their Certificate of Occupancy. The inspector locates a Factory Mutual requirement that indicates that the sprinkler should be an "ordinary hazard" and not a "light hazard." The inspector stated that the sprinklers would cause him to reject a Certificate of Occupancy. The redesign to this standard adds 30 heads. The subcontractor states that they must receive a change order prior to commencing work. The subcontractor states that it is likely to take three weeks to complete the work. The extra work to add the heads must begin immediately to prevent delay to Substantial Completion. Question No.1: What steps could have been taken at the estimating and purchasing stage to prevent this situation? Question No.2: Would Amatrol have a right to recover pursuant to the above referenced article? Question No.3: Would Amatrol's argument be for the cost of the thirty additional heads or for all increased costs resulting from the change? Question No.4: Should the Project Manager direct the subcontractor to proceed? Ouestion No.5: Should the Project Manager file a Notice of Claim with the Owner claiming that the design error is causing an impact to Substantial Completion? Question No.6: What are some other steps that should or could have been taken?

Explanation / Answer

1Answer

1. As per the information concerning estimate and purchase stage the specifications and recommondations be not correctly taken into thought. They should contain a clear idea of approach items they are going to make use of for building.

2. The Design is not properly verified via the authority to be acquainted with what exactly is wanted to be provide.

2Answer

Amatrol contain no right to get well pursuant to the on top of referenced piece of writing as there be no ID that are prepared and sign, the job was performed base on verbal message as of the sprinkler outworker.

3Answer

Amatrol's argument can't be careful for the cost of the thirty extra heads or for all greater than before costs resulting as of the change as there is no good specififcation details so as to are in use into deliberation during design i.e what type of sprinklers (ordinary danger or light hazard) to exist provided for the building.

4Answer

(No, the scheme manager be supposed to not ask the subcontractor to go on even if there is a holdup. The issue is to be evidently showed to the power to ask for the recompense and liquidated damage cost that is to be salaried due to the improper details provide. When a written corroboration shoots from the power then he can go on

5Answer

Yes, the scheme Manager should file a become aware of of maintain with the proprietor claiming that the design error is cause an impact to Substantial conclusion because the precise type of system is not mention in the document.

6Answer

Steps to be taken:

1. the work done is to be premeditated properly before re responsibility so that inexpensive design can be provided in the direction of the arrangement.

2. Methods to decrease the delay in scheme by all means are in the direction of be taken.

This Case learn is on the subject Of Work Deviation due to rude condition

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

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