Jump to content

Pegacorn

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. Sounds like a good start. Luckily we haven't done it yet. But now we are mandated by USDA to do all NIH past performance evaluations within 14 days after the completion date, even before the final payment and warranty have been completed! Its so stupid. But there is a massive push to get contracts officially closed out. I'm also torn. Told to cool it and not upset the A-E as we have some other work they are doing. But then I'm told to get on it and solve it. Our Govt. engineer isn't much help.
  2. We constructed a building. Hired the designing A-E to do construction management and commissioning. One month before the 1 year warranty expired. Two systems failed. Constructor contractor claims to have done per the contract. A-E finally inspected and gave us some minor information on the problems. A hook-up was not per the submittal for one system. Suggested the system be checked throughly by contractor. Other system, just move some tubing so heat is generated where it should be. Construction contractor says tubing is where it should be and if he moves it, at our cost, the tubes would be mashed by equipment laying on it. Construction contractor's sub has dissolved and he refuses to do more work. Called A-E back twice and left messages. We need clarification. Was the work done per four drawings/specs. If not done per submittal need to show construction contractor. A-E not responding. As grumbled about getting compensation. But if work wasn't per drawings/specs. The A-E failed to find it and the construction contractor's sub failed to follow it as well. If it was a drawing problem, it's the A-E fault. But if per our drawings and specs. and submittals, which were approved by the A-E, neither contractor is at fault. But how do I find out? What do I do now? Review the A-E warranty clause and write up a letter? Both contractors have been fully paid. I'm in a bine. Would appreciate advise. Thank you
  3. Unless there was an option clause for the balance, which I assume there wasn't, then the CO did violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and it's not a legal procurement. However, such cases have later been ratified to satisfy all parties. The Government may still have a need for the building as well. The cheapest and easiest thing to do is first determine the the cost awarded is fair and reasonable, then go for a ratification. The contractor will otherwise probably file a claim and fight the Government in court, costing more time and money then ratification would. Even negotiating a D4C could be more costly then the original $100K. Slim Chance: Is there a way to cut down costs if not completed to reduce it to the $70K funded? I am assuming since they billed for $50,000 it's about half done. Or did I miss something?
×
×
  • Create New...