By Bruce Jervis
A federal construction project in Alaska has provided another example of owners trying to have it both ways with site condition information. During bid preparation, the site was buried in snow. The government provided logs from eight soil test borings. Actual subsurface conditions proved to be very different from the indications in the logs. The government then attempted to rely on general cautionary comments and descriptive terms it had included in the contract documents.
Project owners are working at cross purposes when it comes to site data. They provide specific information to reduce price contingencies and encourage tight bidding. Yet, fearing the liability that might result, they seek to limit or disclaim the significance of that information. ... Read more.
Featured in this Week’s Construction Claims Advisor:
- Broad Disclaimers Did Not Negate Specific Site Condition Representations
- Completion Deadline Voided but Reasonable Completion Still Required
- Surety Defaults on Subcontractor Claim
By Steve Rizer
When undertaking an initiative to identify and measure loss of productivity in a construction project, “you always want to start with understanding how … the project [was] planned to be built,” William Ibbs, professor and group leader in the Construction Management Program of the University of California-Berkeley’s Civil Engineering Department, advised a group of professionals attending a recent WPL Publishing webinar.
“Go back and look at the baseline schedule,” Ibbs suggested. “Look at the staffing on the project. Verify that [the staffing] was reasonable. Look at the sequence. Look at the time periods when the work was going to be done. Look at the pacing of the work, the rhythm of the work, the throughput of the work. Make sure that the original plan was reasonable and [was] a good starting point.” ... Read more.