| Who Pays for Additional Concrete Testing When Defects are Present? |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Chris Hutchinson |
| Monday, 01 November 2010 17:44 |
|
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: 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?
|
Comments
I think your website is really good! It's easy to figure out what you do and it's simple to navigate. I get so frustrated with websites that are so full of junk that you can't figure out what they are peddling or how to contact them.
I agree with the solution of having the contractor pay for the testing in the circumstances listed. It would seem to cut down on unnecessary testing, in my opinion.
Cheers!
Nancy
RSS feed for comments to this post