Search Construction Advisor Today

  • constructionadvisortoday.com

Bookmark and Share

« Administration Urged to Broaden Its Program for Promoting Green Buildings | Main | BIM Expert Addresses Professionals Attending WPL’s ‘Data, Collaboration and the Cloud’ Webinar »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The engineer has a greater duty to know his own code than the contractor. This engineer haas been through this before and knew the contractor could get stiffed and did it anyway. The city was unfair to the contractor. They were legally right but exhibited bad faith in their refusal.

I had a client on a city project actually get all the required signatures, and got paid for an increase in steel prices between bid and contract. But the Contracts Department later stated that it was a "cost increase", not "extra work", and therefore not allowable as a change order and they rescinded it. The trick with government work, at least in Texas, is that there is no "apparent authority" argument to use. Government employees have no more authority than the charter or contract confers on them, no matter what they may say or even believe.

Every one were inequitable to the contractor. This is all called political Drama...

There is a common law of our land called due just enrichment. even if there is no true authority for appproval, if the owner recieves a benifit a certain compensation may be in order

As a Public Owner's representative, we have a clear line of authority established on our building construction projects. This is communicated directly to the contractor. We never leave anyone in limbo about who has the authority to approve change orders. 2 levels of signatures are mandatory... and we would never direct a contractor to proceed with a change unless that authority was granted. Our standard is to be "firm, but fair" in all contract change issues.
In 30 years and $300M in building, we have not had to litigate any change order disputes.

Also in Japan, as far as I recognize, the municipality's project has somewhat different procedures from those of central government's projects. The contract form(General Conditions of Construction Contract) is quite the same with that used for central government project agencies. Main difference is that each of the successful bid prices should be approved by city council(assembly). This rule comes from Municipalities Law in Japan. So, after the bid award, the parties once enter into a tentative contract. Rather strange practice or not? Just the same procedures are needed regarding the amount of change orders. Nevertheless the construction works are being usually proceeded.
Here, I should like to know the followings:
(a)Is there a similar procedure with mentioned above in municipalities in US?
(b) What kind of contract form(General Conditions of Contract) was used in the stated Minnesota case?
(c) Is that contract form similar with those of AIA A201 or Engineer's Joint association? Or rather similar with FAR regulations for GSA etc?
I am so much interested in these problems in US, UK, NZ and Japan. So, I really hope that any comments would be given to each of above questions.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment