Change Order Request 8

[beckala36]

Can anyone tell me what is standard practice for the following situation:

The scale on our set of HVAC drawings is mis-labeled. The actual scale is 1/8" = 1' and is labeled at 1/4" = 1'.
When the HVAC contractor did his take off he determined his quantities based on the scale shown on the drawings. Now, he realizes he only have half the materials and labor he needs. He wants the moeny for the other half. The architect continues to reject this claim. The owner goes with whatever the architect says.

I feel my HVAC sub deserves his money. Any advise on how to change the mind of the owner and architect?

 

[MadMango]

Regardless of scale on the drawing, weren't there dimensions that should have been used to bid this project?

I agree that you shouldn't burn bridges with your subs, and the miscommunication was your companies fault. In the end the sub shouldn't have scaled the drawing, they should have based the job on printed dims.

You could talk with your boss, let them know that your sub is a good outfit. Relate that it was the companies fault for indicating the wrong scale, and are there fore somewhat to blame. Try to reach a happy medium. It's hard to give further advice not knowing the culture of your company, your sub or the mind set of your boss.

[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[beckala36]

I work for a general contractor, the architect provided the mis-labeled drawings. Due to it being an HVAC drawings there are not architectural dimensions shown. The architect says the HVAC sub should have going to the jobsite to verify dimensions. Who has time to do that?

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

If there were no dimensions on the drawings, then the Architiect and owner should suck it up and pay a resonable extra. If in view of the whole job the amount is relatively small, you as the GC could agree to absorb some of the extra as a show of good faith. Ultimately the architiect messed up and is responsable.

 

[IRstuff]

I think that the HVAC sub failed to do some amount of due diligence.

TTFN

 

[beckala36]

thanks...keep the comments coming, i'm really curious about this issue. it's a second tier sub who is asking for the money and we have proposed it to the owner and architect without any mark-up and even offered to split the amount and still they respond no!. what really gets me is in other cases when there are questions about dimensions we are told to scale the drawings. i have a degree in engineering and work in construction management and there is such a problem with designers failing to recognize the importance of good drawings and specs. this could be helped if architect and engineers doing design work left the office and spent time in the field.

 

[DRC1]

No one can be expected to field measure for an HVAC system before a bid. I have run into similar situations before. I suspect the contract language says that the contracor will field verify the required dimensions. I have succesfully and correctly argued that I am not the contractor until I am awarded the job. Until then I am the bidder. It is unfair to have every bidder field measure every job and that is why it does not say "bidder". However, your HVAC bidder has become the successful subcontractor, and has verified the drawings were incorrect. He has fulfilled the contract. The error in representation is the owner's due to the fault of the architect. THe owner recieved a price for what he represented on the drawings. The HVAC contractor now can either install what is shown in the drawings,upon which his price is based, or he can install the additional material at at additional cost. Be careful as his contract is with the first tier sub and the first tier sub is with you, so don't give away anything with out all parties on your side being in agreement preferably in writing. The sub is rightfully entitled to all costs, plus markup for the additional material, plus additional time for at least instalation, and his contractor is entitled to that time and the markup on those costs, so be careful what you give up. Although to keep the project moving you may have to pay the sub and put a claim in to the owner and carry it.I would get a letter from the owner or the architect that regardless of how the claim is settled, how do they want you to proceed? - Aint being a GC fun?

 

[beckala36]

Great advice!
The work is complete and the project wrapping up. One of our last owner meetings is on Monday. I feel much better about going now.

 

[eyec]

drc1 provided an excellent resolution/explanation to the situation. (bam! another star for him)

the only thing i will add is that if the 2nd tier sub does not get agreeable relief he can/may file a lein and this whole thing could end up in court - costing probably as much or more as the difference in the bid. but his case will be against the GC not the owner.

end result - nobody is a happy camper (except the lawyers)

 

[IRstuff]

Back to the question of due diligence; where there drawing features that might have clued the sub that the scale was wrong, e.g., doorways, halls that would have become too narrow?

TTFN

 

[beckala36]

the area in question was a hw run through the existing building out to the additon. i supposed there may have been some clues, however i have spoken with the sub in questions and he says they really depend on the scale shown. Also, there are many other drawings in the plan set that have the wrong scale, and we have made this point as well.

 

[BML]

As much as I hate to bring this up, the architect or structural engineer would have had to seal the documents to indicate they are correct and valid. And since you mention that there were other sheets that carried the wrong scale and were not HVAC related, then it seems that at least some portion of the due diligence problem lies with the architect.

 

[TedLinsle]

I'm posting this at a late date in the thread, but my first question about this situation would be "was there any language in the General or Supplemental Conditions stating that the drawings weren't scaleable"?

Sometimes the specifications state such a disclaimer noting that critical dimensions will be labled, e.g. on the architectural and/or structural drawings. If so, my argument for the contractor would be that the contract documents in question are contradictory in having that language together with a filled-in scale block other than "NONE" or "NTS". AIA guidelines and court precedent is sympathetic to the designer only when the contract documents are complementary. (E.g. it's not okay to say "where discrepencies exist, fill-in-the-blank are precedent")

Further, one can argue that the "do not scale" disclaimer language is there for problems in printing that can lead to distortions of the print scale, fractional print sizes, etc., and this wasn't the source of the miscalculation.

 

[PatrickMorton]

I know this is really late but I can not help but question the scale difference. What size drawings were provided to the bidder/contractor? It looks like the drawings may have been generated in full size (22 x 34) and then printed in half size (11 x 17). That would account for the suppossed mislabled scale. If they were provided electronically they may not have been printed correctly. I know this may seem really basic but I have had trouble with this before and with some people that were expected to know better.

 

[beckala36]

The sub. was given full size drawings, the scale was labeled incorrectly buy the architect from the start.

 

[PatrickMorton]

The last thing I have to say about the issue is if the architect sealed the drawings then the claim should be made against the E&O policy of the architect. This is a prime example of why you have E&O insurance in the first place. The error is clearly on the drawings and clearly the responsibility of the architect. The architect should cover the cost either out of pocket or through their E&O policy.

The mechanical contractor, as he is fully aware, has the right to file a mechanical lien against the work and would subsequently prevent the owner / architect from obtaining a CO. That should motivate the architect to settle the case.

If this went to arbitration (which should have been a provision within the original contract) it would clearly be in favor of the mechanical contractor. It is really an open and shut case.

 

[eyec]

PatrickMorton nailed it in my book.

 

[DRC1]

Actually, I don't know why this would go against the E&O insurance. After all the owner had 1/2 the HVAC priced and once he situaton was resolved, he bought (I assume) the other half. The owner really had no loss. He was surprised to find the HVAC cost more than he thought, but he got what he paid for, so I do not see how he was damaged.

 

[RDK]

Ask the contractor how much he would be returning had the error been the other way and he had priced in twice as much material. If he gives a fair amount then pay him. If he says nothing because he would have bid the actual work then pay him that amount.

But seriously

If the drawings had been correctly marked then the original bid would have been greater.

The owner should not get something for nothing and the contractor should not have to pay for the mistakes of others.

Bottom line is to treat everyone in a fair manner.

Than means getting the contractor the money that he would have bid had he been provided with the correct information. This may be different than that asked for but the contractor as an extra.

If you fight this all the way and end up in court then the only one who will make any money on the job will be the lawyers.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[BigH]

I don't deal in HVAC design/construction aspects but wasn't there a bill of quantities for the work? . . . or is this something that doesn't show up as such. If there were a BOQ, clearly, some question about the size of the project would have jumped out and this could have been handled in a pre-bid meeting or question. Or, am I out to lunch . . . speaking of which . . .