Unforeseen Conditions

Building Section Vignette and Multiple Choice

Unforeseen Conditions

Postby kreid » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:51 pm

In the Ballast practice exam question 16 says that the contractor is technically responsible for additional cost incurred for unknown site conditions. It states because the contractor is supposed to become familiar with the site before execution of the contract this is why they are responsible. The question indicates the Contractor was given a soils report of the site. In A201, 3.7.4 it says " Concealed or Unknown Conditions.
If the Contractor encounters conditions at the site that are (1) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions that differ materially from those indicated in the Contract Documents or (2) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature that differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall promptly provide notice to the Owner and the Architect before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than 21 days after first observance of the conditions. The Architect will promptly investigate such conditions and, if the Architect determines that they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in the Contractor’s cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the Work, will recommend an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both. If the Architect determines that the conditions at the site are not materially different from those indicated in the Contract Documents and that no change in the terms of the Contract is justified, the Architect shall promptly notify the Owner and Contractor in writing, stating the reasons. If either party disputes the Architect’s determination or recommendation, that party may proceed as provided in Article 15.

**Is it the contractor's responsibility because they were given a soils report of the site and should have visited the site so they could anticipate some extra excavation/ground work? Where is the line drawn on when a Contractor is responsible because they should visit the site vs when they are supposed to be able to rely on the accuracy of the information supplied by the owner??
kreid
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:14 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby Coach » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:48 pm

Without knowing exactly what the question said, ballast is wrong.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby tekkenlee » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:51 pm

I have the same problem with that question.

the key term is unforeseen.

a real life example.
we were working on a big box retail store with shallow spread footings. Geotech did the soil boring, and see no problem. During excavation, we found a big rock in between the soil boring locations.
In our case, the contractor bid per the information given in the geotech report. The geotech pick all the right locations for soil boring. But just happen to missed this big rock. the additional foundation work was $2 million.
In this case, if you are the contractor, you think it's your responsibility to paid for the additional cost? the owner could of terminate the project, and pick a different location. the owner end up paying for the additional cost because the condition was indeed "unforeseen", and they really like the plot because it's off a major highway.

I would be happy to hear everyone else input on this.
tekkenlee
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby jaj510 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:30 pm

I could see this unforeseen condition being eaten by the contractor falling under the contingency amount estimated by the contractor. As the Owner did provide a geotechnical survey and if performed properly falls on the contractor to rely on and confirm the findings of these tests. That is why contractors include normally a 10% of construction cost contingency plan for unforeseen conditions.

I could also see it falling under the responsibility of the owner to provide further testing once reported by the contractor. This could be corrected in the form of a change order if additional testing prove conditions require change in construction documents.
jaj510
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby Coach » Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:54 pm

jaj510 wrote:I could see this unforeseen condition being eaten by the contractor falling under the contingency amount estimated by the contractor. As the Owner did provide a geotechnical survey and if performed properly falls on the contractor to rely on and confirm the findings of these tests. That is why contractors include normally a 10% of construction cost contingency plan for unforeseen conditions.

Wrong. In a typical bid, contractor's contingency is not for the owner's benefit.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby AVITWeb » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:07 pm

Not sure which printing you have, but if you create an account (which is free) and register your copy of the Ballast Book, you have access to the errata.
The description for this problem is in there.
AVITWeb
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby NacerM » Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:06 am

balast is wrong. even the contractor visited the site there is not a way for the him to know whats under the soil, they are entitled to rely on the survey provided by the owner. its a concealed condition and the owner's responsibility.
NacerM
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby hnQ_9999 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:13 pm

re. this unforeseen issue. 201 has keywords "materially different", and brief explanation about
type 1 (materially different from the contract) and
type 2 (materially different from normal site discovery)

Attached is the useful link:
http://ohioconstructionlaw.keglerbrown. ... ifference/
hnQ_9999
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:35 am

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby corbismyhomeboy » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:38 am

I work in preservation and this is a big deal for us. We typically recommend to our clients that they carry a contingency for unforeseen conditions. Typically 10% is sufficient but you always have to work with the owner to help them understand what percentage is appropriate and that it is necessary for work on historic buildings. If we are only doing a very small scale project (replacing a roof, or an interior restoration), less is typically ok.
corbismyhomeboy
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:31 am

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby seaccs » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:36 pm

Ballast is correct. Assuming this is the same Ballast question #16 that has been debated before, the wording of the problem is key. See my response here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45252&p=155519#p155425
seaccs
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:13 pm

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby hllARE » Mon May 15, 2017 9:45 pm

I have 2015 version of Ballast practice exam. The given answer is THE OWNER.
hllARE
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:04 am

Re: Unforeseen Conditions

Postby cma52572 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:57 pm

Damn I certainly won't be buying Ballast study material in the future. seems like the material is especially bad w/ regards to CDs.

I would say this is the Owners responsibility. Despite the Contractor getting familiar w/ site conditions he can only do so much. Contractors would all go bankrupt if they had to be accountable for stuff like this. Seems like the statement on the geotech report that there are or maybe unforeseen conditions is a cop out.

Bottom line the owner knows there is a BIG unknown under the soil and is the one taking that risk.

This has to be the Owner. And I hope that Ballast does not write the exams or we are screwed.
cma52572
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:56 pm


Return to CDS - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS & SERVICES

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests

cron