Electrical contractor's resposibility to provide components

I am a civil engineer by training involved in construction management of a wastewater pumping station project. The electrical design has provided a schematic diagram of the electrical requirements and in notes and specifications, indicated the electrical contractor should provide and install all components required by the NEC. The schematic does not include an in-ground pull box that is necessary by code and the contractor is maintaining that this will amount to extra work and additional costs. The position that the electrical designer and I have taken is that the contractor should have realized the need for the pull box when he was preparing his bid and that there is no extra work involved. The cost of the pull box is minor relative the overall electrical portion of the contract. Does the contractor have a legitimate argument?

 

[VTer]

Assuming typical contract, the contractor is responsible for "means and methods" for construction and therefore should have realized that there might be a need for a pull box and should have included it in their bid at minimum. There should not be any additional cost.

"Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature". – Nikola Tesla

 

[DonPhillips]

If the contract is an AIA contract, the engineer must response to the proposed change order by denying it and referencing where in the contract the proposed extra work is included. sounds like you have the details covered, you just need the engineer put it in writing.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[BJC]

" not include an in-ground pull box that is necessary by code"
Who says so?
An inground may or may not be require by code. It would take more information than I read above to say that is the case. The contractor may have a ligitamate case.
As DonPhillips impled AIA contracts IMO are usually to vague to worth much. If the installation passes the elctrical inspectors inspection it's code compliant.
If someone really wanted a specific pull box it should have been on the drawings and in the specifications.
Doing what the engineer or architech though they wanted is a fast way to go broke.

 

[EEJaime]

We fight this battle on every project. Wether for a minor issue such as this,or larger issues.

As some have alluded to there are several issues:
1) Whom has stated that the pullbox is "required by code".
2) If the inspector has so stated, then that is sufficient to require that it be installed.
3) Is the work already installed without the pullbox?
4) Any standard contract wether it is AIA or not will require that the Contractor deliver a complete and operable system consistent with all applicable codes and standards. Any material necessary to deliver such is by definition part of the bid and is not a change to the Contract.
5) If it is only someone's PREFERENCE. The Owner, the Engineer, the maintenance staff, etc..., the contractor can not be forced to add the box without compensation if it is not a code issue.
Regards

 

[itsmoked]

Let me get this straight. If it is required by code but the drawings do not show it, and it wasn't included in the quote, then the electrical installer has to pay for it?!?!

Sounds bogus to me. Like a shrewd designer would wash thru his drawings leaving out anything he thought he could, "because the contractor will have to eat it". Sounds like a recipe made for lawyers.

Is the contractor supposed to go over the drawings with a fine tooth comb, find these discrepancies, and add them to the quote?

Most interesting.

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[dpc]

If the contractor can come up with a method for installation that meets the NEC without the pullbox, then he probably doesn't have to pay for it.

This should be submitted to the local AHJ for determination of the necessity for the pullbox. That should settle the matter.

But as a general rule, if you cut costs by doing a sketchy performance spec on the design, you can't expect a super high-quality installation.

 

[DRWeig]

Guyz,

Always a contention in my experience. However, I worked for the type of boss who would have crucified me (if not fired me) if I left a pull box off of a drawing and assumed that the contractor would pick it up in his estimate. Engineers calculate and design. Contractors build.

I saw a drawing years ago of lighting for a gymnasium. Fifteen little circles drawn on a diagram of a basketball court. A note at bottom said, "Install 400W Metal Halide Fixtures, Model XXXXX, where shown. Meet all codes, pass all inspections." It had an engineer's stamp on it. Tennessee Board got a copy. Was the fellow's fifth offense. He's now selling real estate and making about 5X what I do.

Best to never leave any calculating to the contractor. Put it on the drawings or be prepared to chip in. Unless you have a knack for sales I guess...

Good on y'all and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Goober Dave

 

[itsmoked]

He's now selling real estate and making about 5X what I do.

That'll teach the SOB!

Hey wait a minute!

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[jghrist]

It is common in lighting designs to show only a homerun type diagram (shows only what wires are needed) and leave all of the raceway design to the contractor. An experienced contractor can cost the job, bid it, and install it to code without the expense of a detailed design.

 

[MagneticFlux]

The consensus here seems to be the need for more information.

A contractor is an extension of the engineering team. If the contractor over looked the item and it is required by code, then just come forward and say it. No owner or engineer expects a contractor to take a hit on something major. No estimator OR engineer can fully account for every nut and bolt on the job. Some level of professional cooperation is expected in this business.

I have witnessed missed items issues and miscalculations on the part of both the engineering team and the contracting team. What is important is the they are identified before turn over and addressed so the people that utilize the space, plant or whatever are in a safe environment.

The code, specifically the NEC, is understood by all in this industry it is the bare a_s_s minimum requirement for "safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the the use of electricity" Article 90.1(A). Both the engineer(s) and contractor(s) should strive to exceed these requirements.

In this situation, based on the information, I would offer a compromise. Offer to pay for the material if the contractor agrees to absorb the cost of installation. I would only offer this IF the contractor has meet all your expectations up to this point AND has a good reputation among other contractors. It is a sad fact in this industry that the lowest bid wins and some contractors take advantage of that fact when given a set of ambiguous bid documents.
What happened to accepting the lowest RESPONSIBLE bid? If your wondering how to find a responsible bid here are a few suggestions:

1) Take at least 3 bids and throw out the highest and lowest.

2) Reject all bids not within 5% of the average of all bids received.

 

[EEJaime]

Well the expectations of what a qualified contractor is expected to include as the means and methods of an installation always have to be reasonable. An engineer can't merely draw a cartoon and make general statements and expect a working, serviceable installation. And as noted previously, construction documents are not going to specify and detail every bend, offset, jbox, coupling and wire nut.

MagFlux has the best answer, buildings do not get built with constant headbutting between the different members of the construction team. The best electrical contractors we work with know what is required to get the job done, and when we miss something of consequence on the drawings, it is very easy to get the changes approved. It truly is a collaborative effort. If we get into petty disputes over every minor issue, it gets to be a really long construction process, with nickel and dime change order requests and miles long punch lists, neither of which ever get completely settled. The long term loser is the Owner.

That's why working on larger projects with experienced, professional contractors and experienced professional engineers whom know construction is such a great thing, (when it happens). Those embattled projects just seem to go on forever.