Volume 6 - Number 27 | July 7, 2008 - Construction Claims Advisor

Resources

Sample Issue

Construction Claims Reference Library

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

Login Here

Search

Events Calendar

You are here: Home » Volume 6 - Number 27 | July 7, 2008

Volume 6 - Number 27 | July 7, 2008

Recent Issues

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 6-27: Changes orders are an expected part of the construction process. Owners change their minds about details midway through a project and accommodations must be made. In the case of a science building in Bethesda, Md., when the government scientists who were destined to occupy the building realized there was a $15 million budget surplus, they started demanding upgrades to “their” building, including an entire new floor. The surplus turned into a bottomless pit and the change orders resulted in more than 200 contract modifications by the time the project reached substantial completion. The ruling over cumulative impacts by the federal claims court is a significant win for the contractor.

When submitting a bid, it pays to pay attention to the details of the request for proposals. The next two cases resulted in two contractors’ failures to read and adhere to the requirements. In one, the low bidder was rejected because the next lowest bidder factored in a key element—an expedited project delivery date. And in the other, a contractor violated state wage statutes too many times to qualify for the project.

And finally, a contractor delivered a faulty roof and was held liable for its demolition and replacement, which totaled more than the market value of the entire building.

OWNER’S ACCORD AND SATISFACTION NO MATCH FOR CONTRACTOR’S CHANGE ORDER NIGHTMARE

By Daniel P. Wierzba
Work acceleration requirements coupled with 200-plus change orders on a government project lead to a legal skirmish over payment disputes, cumulative impacts and labor inefficiencies. Productivity and schedule analyses key to contractor’s recovery for cumulative impacts.

COMPLETION DATE WAS NOT UNDISCLOSED BID EVALUATION FACTOR: Price isn’t the only determining factor on a county prison project. The completion date also affected the decision.

LOW BID REJECTED DUE TO MINOR WAGE VIOLATIONS: Multiple minor infractions against a wage statute come back to haunt a painting contractor denied county work.