Vern Edwards Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 11 minutes ago, joel hoffman said: Assuming that the changes clause is still applicable, yes. What Changes clause is in the contract and/or task order? That assumes that the "new work" is within the scope of the order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said: That assumes that the "new work" is within the scope of the order. Yes, that is why I said “Assuming that the Changes clause is still applicable”. Per previous discussions, that would have to be determined. Edit - added: I asked the second question because the applicable Changes clause will describe what the contractor can do, short of a Disputes claim to assert its rights to an adjustment or for an act or to a unilateral change order. From the limited information provided, it appears to me that there has been a directed or constructive suspension of work because removing the old waterline would cut off the generals quarters and a shop. The contractor has apparently tried to mitigate costs and other impacts, even demobilizing all but the trench box and plates and a site trailer. The government has not issued a mod or a partial termination. The contractor doesn’t have to agree to the price or time adjustment that the government might unilaterally issue. If so, it needs to assert it rights, that are covered under the various clauses, including possibly, Suspension of work (costs of the suspension prior to issuance of a change order), Defaults (time extension due to the suspension) and the Changes clause for equitable adjustments for time and cost to perform the changed work. it might be a differing site condition that caused the change (the need to switch the two service lines to the new water line). Fun stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 39 minutes ago, joel hoffman said: From the limited information provided, it appears to me that there has been a directed or constructive suspension of work because removing the old waterline would cut off the generals quarters and a shop. The contractor has apparently tried to mitigate costs and other impacts, even demobilizing all but the trench box and plates and a site trailer. Yes, well... This has been one of those threads in which the story has dribbled out. I don't care to speculate about what it's really about. I wish the OP well, but I'm not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 29, 2021 Report Share Posted July 29, 2021 14 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: Yes, well... This has been one of those threads in which the story has dribbled out. I don't care to speculate about what it's really about. I wish the OP well, but I'm not interested. Yep, we only have one (partial) side of the story and don’t even know the magnitude of the task order or the change. I used to design, contract for and did some actual construction of water lines as well as service lines and taps for services (45 years ago). I can visualize the scenario, if that is the rest of the story. I can’t understand what the big deal would be about running two small lateral service lines (probably 3/4”) and taps into a water line. Perhaps they have to extend the water main to reach the two additional facilities that are presently served by the existing line to be removed. If the delay issue was lack of installation O&M funding, the Installation could have and could probably still use expired funds for an in-scope change but would have to go up for those. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts