|
http://www.forconstructionpros.com/print/Concrete-Contractor/Features/Who-Pays-for-Additional-Testing/7FCP17434
The above article from Concrete Contractor is also posted to our our Facebook concrete pour-in-place group. I do believe that posting a link to an article there looks better, so when I have a article to post, I will most likely post it there first (or maybe only there if I'm busy), but since there's a chance that someone with insightful comments might not have any interest in having a Facebook account, I will always try to do it at both. I will also try to copy & paste comments from other contributors when I see their comments in one group and not the other. I encourage others to also use our various social media mediums when posting something interesting or when posting a particular question or request for advice seeing as the more eyes on a topic the better the chance of getting a reply. Our administrator, Mr. Savinc, and I will always try to keep things coordinated between the different groups, fan page, etc. to the best of our ability and time schedule.
So... with all that said... these were my comments from our Facebook concrete pour-in-place group to the above article:
This heading caught my attention because there’s almost always an issue on a jobsite over who is going to pay for what. This is good advice from the article, “Check contract documents to make sure there are no contractual obligations for you to search for defects that aren't apparent.” Better advice would probably be to pay attention to the matter while negotiating the contract but we know how things go sometimes.
This is a nice contract provision included in the article:
“Tests for Suspected Deficient Work: If in the opinion of the Owner, Architect, or Engineer any of the work of the Contractor is not satisfactory, the Contractor shall furnish and pay for all tests that the Owner, Architect, or Engineer deem advisable to determine its proper construction. The Owner shall pay all costs if the tests prove the questioned work to be satisfactory."
Very good stuff to think about regarding possible defects but I’ve seen over the summer a situation that’s a bit different… not initiated due to a defect by the subcontractor… where I’ve asked myself the question, “Who SHOULD pay for the concrete testing?
I wasn’t so directly involved in it so I’m not sure of the exact details, but what seemed to happen is that due to the pour-in-place curbing technique being very new to the area, and I’m sure people being nervous about using a new technique, the testing was excessive. At least in my opinion it was excessive. The company doing the work was highly experienced with the technique. I don’t feel they should have to pay for it. Should the general contractor? The firm doing the inspecting for the government maybe? It was a public project.
Does anyone have any experience with this situation?
|