|
Volume 6 - Number 26 | June 30, 2008
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Schedule analysis can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the perspective. For example, a public owner used an elementary bar graph schedule to show that the contractor was not on track for a timely completion. The ASBCA determined that the analysis was so flawed and two-dimensional that it could not be trusted. As a result, it changed contracting officer’s default termination to a termination for convenience.
For more information on schedule analysis, visit our Claims Library to view the five-part series by John Livengood on AACEI’s recommended practice on forensic schedule analysis.
On a maximum-price project in which the requirements are detailed in two lists, a contractor has a right to ask for and receive additional compensation for extra work not included in the original scope, especially if the owner knew about the extra requirements but failed to disclose them. The question, before a California court, has had mixed responses from jurisdictions in the Golden State.
Procurement statutes are in place for a reason. When a university tried to circumvent the regulation on a project (which was ultimately cancelled), it faced a harsh protest from a prospective contractor.
Have green building practices become part of your day-to-day business model? If so, you won’t want to miss WPL Publishing’s upcoming webinar series, Green Building Best Practices 2008. The first session, covering certifications, will be held July 9. Other topics include the construction phase, commissioning, and legal and risk considerations. For more information on this four-part series, visit http://www.constructionclaims.com/products/audio_seminars/1482-1.html .
|
|
