September 24, 2007

EDITOR'S NOTES

In all but the most flawless of plans, there typically exists a gap between expectations and reality. An owner may have great expectations for a project, but without proper information at the project’s onset and throughout the process, the outcome may be very different from the original intent. It is unreasonable for an owner to expect absolute and undeviating perfection from its contractor if it does not provide perfect plans. With that in mind, this first case addresses a government agency that tried to avoid costs associated with a differing site condition caused, in large measure, by less-than-perfect bid documents. It was unsuccessful in its argument that the contractor should have known the specs were defective when it calculated its bid.

This week’s second case deals with a dispute over a relatively small amount of money. More important here is the fact that the owner could not recover costs from his breaching contractor because the undisbursed contract balance was enough to cover the cost of completing the work.

Next, a surety is obligated to cover the performance bond on a subcontract despite lack of a formal notification of contract default, as required by the contract.

Finally, John Livengood of Warner Construction Consultants presents an abstract of the recently released Recommended Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis, published by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering.

Subscribers: click here for the full story

Non-Subscribers: click here to subscribe