|
Volume 5 - Number 43 | October 29, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Over the past several months, we have covered multiple episodes of informational non-disclosure. In each case, the party that fails to share information crucial to the success or failure of the project ends up on the losing side of the lawsuit. This week’s first case illustrates that lesson yet again. A city initiated a sewer rehabilitation project but failed to alert the contractor that a lawsuit was pending over alleged contaminated soil. The contractor bid on the project, unaware of the litigation. It ultimately was required to truck in clean soil, which increased the cost of the project. The court allowed it to pass the increased cost to the city, despite the city’s argument of sovereign immunity and extra-contractual work.
Next, when a subcontractor fails to follow contract specifications and ignores requests to remedy the problem within the time allotted, the prime has the right to commence a contractual take-over to complete the project. Arguments of improper notice fail to convince the court that the sub planned to correct the problems.
And finally, we bring you another issue on the dealings between Fru-Con Construction Corp. and the Army Corps of Engineers on a dam rehabilitation project in Ohio. This latest legal episode covers profit mark-ups for deductive change orders.
|
|
Only Three Days Left to Register for Schedule Expert's Audioconference
Only three days left to register for the "Construction Delay - How Opposing Experts Can Come to Different Conclusions from the Same Set of Facts: Honest Mistake, System Failure or Deceptive Practice?" audioconference to be held Monday Nov. 12. Here's a great opportunity to learn and ask your questions about schedule analysis and delay claim testimony before the boards and courts.
|
|
INCREASED COSTS CAUSED BY PUBLIC PROJECT OWNER’S FAILURE TO INFORM
A contractor digs up more than just soil when it begins a sewer rehabilitation project—it digs up trouble with a neighborhood that had filed a lawsuit over alleged contaminated soil. Because the public owner failed to disclose the lawsuit, it must cover the contractor’s increased costs despite the state’s sovereign immunity statute.
|
|
