IDM

IDM

Postby BITINGTHEDUST » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:21 pm

At the start of construction, architect reject the sub-contractor's list. Contractor took a long time to bring on an acceptable subcontractor list, and as a result, the scope of the sub-contractor's work has been delayed. the contractor submits a claim for this delay, you are the contract's designated IDM, what would you do?

1. Reject the Claim
2. Inform the contractor you cannot make a decision

I chose 1. Though I thought 2 could be the answer as the architect is involved, I concluded the architect needs to make an impartial decision as IDM before the contractor file mediation, according to the AIA documents...
BITINGTHEDUST
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:30 am

Re: IDM

Postby usa4 » Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:47 am

In some cases,like this, its best to let the an impartial process take care of this. If the architect ended up deciding against the contractor, he will most likely take it to the next step.

In other cases, say for instance- the case of a sumbital turned in out of sequence, might be better off just getting it done to facilitate the continuation of the job.
usa4
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:12 pm

Re: IDM

Postby hnQ_9999 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:36 pm

BITINGTHEDUST wrote:I thought 2 could be the answer as the architect is involved...


Why architect being involved ? He just did what he had to, by A201.
Normally if Sub gets delay, he asks for a CO for more labor/overtime or
more time, not a claim. If Owner said no, he still has to finish the job
by a following CDir and then makes a claim. Now then IDM comes into
the scenario and say (b) because he signed the CDir.
Anyone ?
hnQ_9999
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:35 am

Re: IDM

Postby Coach » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:45 pm

hnQ_9999 wrote:Why architect being involved ?

It's his job.

Normally if Sub gets delay, he asks for a CO for more labor/overtime or
more time, not a claim.

Such a claim can be the start of the CO process.

If Owner said no, he still has to finish the job

Owner doesn't speak to GC directly.

by a following CDir and then makes a claim.

What?

Now then IDM comes into
the scenario and say (b) because he signed the CDir.

Where did you get the idea a directive was involved?

Anyone ?


Read A201.5.2.3. Using the version with commentary is best.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: IDM

Postby hnQ_9999 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:14 pm

ScreenShot083.jpg

ScreenShot082.jpg

Thank you Coach, for pointing out exact paragraph.
This really worth my effort digging old posts (for my own good).

Let me learn from this:
a) According to AIA201, the Sub cannot earn a CO to adjust time
or cost in this case because GC took a long time to propose
another Sub.
b) Answer (1) from the original post is the correct answer (Reject).
c) Whether Architect previously rejected the original Sub is irrelevant.
d) The "impartial" element is indeed not relevant.
e) The Sub just have to bite the bullet.
f) Disregard my bla bla about CDir, and big Thanks to you.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hnQ_9999
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:35 am


Return to CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENTAL EXAM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests

cron