Doesn't the EC normally provide conduit & trenching for new service?

[donw]

Hi, my client was charged additional money by the EC for the conduit and labor to place it. Now, apparently there was no written contract between them, other than a proposal which was very vague as to what was actually included. So my assumption is the construction documents are the contract documents. My one-line diagram states (with reference to the utility feed) "COORDINATE WITH UTILITY FOR EXACT CONDUIT/CONDUCTOR AND TRENCH REQUIREMENTS". It happens that this utility provides the conductors but not the conduit or trenching.

On a similar note, they charged additional for trenching and conduit/conductor to bond two water systems together (the building has two because it was originally two buildings. The contractor had access to the full set of construction documents, so should have known that. On my one-line, I simply specify the conductor sizes for MBJ, building steel bond, piping bond, and the UFER. Isn't that enough?

 

[haskindm]

Depends on the area and the policies of the utility.
I don't think there is any one answer. In this area the EC must provide the conduit, but the utility digs the trench and installs it.

 

[donw]

Thanks, haskindm
I should have made it clear that I'm the engineer and I am referring to the EC charging extra for something that I believe should have been considered a part of the contract. To me, "COORDINATE FOR EXACT REQUIREMENTS FOR x" means to provide "x" to the requirements. What do you think?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Thanks, haskindm
I should have made it clear that I'm the engineer and I am referring to the EC charging extra for something that I believe should have been considered a part of the contract. To me, "COORDINATE FOR EXACT REQUIREMENTS FOR x" means to provide "x" to the requirements. What do you think?

Because you believe he should, does not always mean he should. As Fred mentioned, the different Utilities have different requirements. Next time it may behove you to investigate the utility requirements/procedures for this type of situation.

 

[growler]

Hi, my client was charged additional money by the EC for the conduit and labor to place it. Now, apparently there was no written contract between them, other than a proposal which was very vague as to what was actually included. So my assumption is the construction documents are the contract documents. My one-line diagram states (with reference to the utility feed) "COORDINATE WITH UTILITY FOR EXACT CONDUIT/CONDUCTOR AND TRENCH REQUIREMENTS".

No written contract, vague proposal, my assumption. ( Red Flags )

It's easy to charge, it can be a lot harder to collect. If we are talking about very much money I can see a lawyer making a dollars or two. I think both parties need to learn the wisdom of getting a proper contract.

 

[iwire]

For me it's an easy answer.

WE DON'T TRENCH.

If it is in the contract we exclude it, if we are forced to include it we will sub it out and it will cost the customer more than if they subbed it out themselves.

 

[donw]

growler,
Yeah, red flags! It is an unfortunate situation where the owner had to fire the GC, and I'm not sure if the GC ever had contracts with the subs.

iwire,
Do you provide conduit?

 

[iwire]

iwire,
Do you provide conduit?

Sure we do.

We provide everything but the trench.

Excavation is another trade, we don't do cement work or hang sheetrock either....we are electricians.

I know in some areas ECs own excavating equipment and do that part as well. In this area that would be a very rare.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

As the saying goes, "you know you're talking about money when an electrician grabs a shovel."

 

[Terrynistler]

We work under 5 different POCO's in my service area. They have 5 different requirements. I usually know what is what and what I have to include in the bid. I subcontract all trenching out now and just add it is a line item to the bid if underground.

Two of the poco's require ec to provide everything from the bottom of the pole to the meterloop including the meter loop.

One provides meterloop and wire for placeing inside the conduit.

The other two depend on which engineer you luck into getting and the size of the house and if it is all electric or not.

IMO the EC should have known which poco he was in the jurisdiction of. Of course you would think that there would also be a contract with specific obligations on the contract and which party is responsible.

 

[emahler]

growler,
Yeah, red flags! It is an unfortunate situation where the owner had to fire the GC, and I'm not sure if the GC ever had contracts with the subs.

sounds to me like you had better find out what their contract was with the GC. a lot of times the GC will provide trenching and conduit (he's got the equipment on site, and more money for him) if this was the case here, the EC has every right to charge extra.

my first thought is that the GC was not quite suited to the job to begin with...hence the firing...and at this point, be prepared to pay a lot of extra money to the subs if you want the project done in a timely manner.

 

[infinity]

Sounds like the problem is with the person who accepted the vague contract to begin with.

 

[growler]

It is an unfortunate situation where the owner had to fire the GC, and I'm not sure if the GC ever had contracts with the subs

If this EC was subbing from the GC it would be hard for him to charge ( the owner ) for work that he was not authorized to do( any extra's ). If he has a change order from the GC and didn't get paid then he should bill the owner.

 

[mkgrady]

Now, apparently there was no written contract between them, other than a proposal which was very vague as to what was actually included. So my assumption is the construction documents are the contract documents.

You have to go by what is offered and accepted. Seems like his offer was his proposal and apparently the proposal was accepted. Did he offer to wire the house per your plans? If he did I think you have him. If not then someone needs to tie him into the plans somehow. You might do that by seeing if he is doing the whole job per the plans except for where he is seeking additional compensation.

 

[LarryFine]

To me, "COORDINATE FOR EXACT REQUIREMENTS FOR x" means to provide "x" to the requirements. What do you think?

Sorry, but quite honestly, I don't agree.

My one-line diagram states (with reference to the utility feed) "COORDINATE WITH UTILITY FOR EXACT CONDUIT/CONDUCTOR AND TRENCH REQUIREMENTS".

To me, this means to get info on the requirements for the installation from the utility. This is quite different from "contractor shall provide . . . " or "contractor shall install . . . " or even "contractor shall . . . " actually perform anything at all.

 

[donw]

Larry, in keynotes, I usually will state "1) provide 30/3 disconnect fused per manufacturer" or "provide 10"x10"x6" J-box...but sometimes I just say 1) 10"x10"x6" J-box for..." Ooops! the EC may want the client to pay more for providing the J-box.

 

[donw]

Just another note. In my specifications I have: "THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL A COMPLETE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ALL ITEMS NOTED OR IMPLIED.

ALL DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE AND ALL APPURTENANCES REQUIRED FOR A WORKING SYSTEM MUST BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACTOR'S BID.

FOR ANY ITEMS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DRAWINGS, ANY DESIGN INCONSISTENCIES, ANY ITEMS WHERE THE ENGINEER'S INTENT IS UNCLEAR, AND ANY ITEMS NEEDING CLARIFICATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST, IN WRITING, CLARIFICATION FROM THE ENGINEER."

 

[Brian J.]

ALL DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE AND ALL APPURTENANCES REQUIRED FOR A WORKING SYSTEM MUST BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACTOR'S BID.

A schematic is a diagram that represents the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures. A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey, and may add unrealistic elements that aid comprehension. For example, a subway map intended for riders may represent a subway station with a dot; the dot doesn't resemble the actual station at all but gives the viewer the information he needs without unnecessary visual clutter. A schematic diagram of a chemical process uses symbols to represent the vessels, piping, valves, pumps, and other equipment of the system, emphasizing their interconnection paths and suppressing physical details. In an electronic circuit diagram, the layout of the symbols may not resemble the layout in the physical circuit. In the schematic diagram, the symbolic elements are arranged to be more easily interpreted by the viewer.

Anyone bidding a job off of schematic drawings and not scaled down, detailed drawings is taking quie a risk. I would not look at a job like this for more than 60 seconds. Just not worth the risk.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

I tend to agree with the implication in another post that the engineer was passing information gathering and plan specifications on to the EC. A phone call by the engineer would allow the plans to be specific as to what is required.

 

[romexking]

Just another note. In my specifications I have: "THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL A COMPLETE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ALL ITEMS NOTED OR IMPLIED.

ALL DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE AND ALL APPURTENANCES REQUIRED FOR A WORKING SYSTEM MUST BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACTOR'S BID.

FOR ANY ITEMS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DRAWINGS, ANY DESIGN INCONSISTENCIES, ANY ITEMS WHERE THE ENGINEER'S INTENT IS UNCLEAR, AND ANY ITEMS NEEDING CLARIFICATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST, IN WRITING, CLARIFICATION FROM THE ENGINEER."

With all due respect, it is this type of clause that that has been creeping into drawings and contracts for years that is the root of many problems. Engineers in general have been perfoming less of the "engineering" and more of the "let them figure out all the details". Although it was the failure of the GC to write a contract for the full scope of work of the electrical portion, why should the EC "coordinate" with the utility co before the job is awarded to them? No one wwould be able to submit an accurate Proposal without this information, so why didn't you as the Engineer coordinate the requirements with the utility and have this information included on the drawings or bid documents? You were already under contract with the owner ans surely would have been paid for your time investigating the requirments, unlike the EC before he was awarded the job. I'm certain the utility co reps would not meet with 3, 4 or 5 different contractors to discuss the underground utility conduit locations and requirements. My point of view is that this area is absolutely the responsibility of the Engineer to coordinate, unless it is to be a Contract Change when the definative requirements and utility conduit location are determined.

The grounding is a different issue, this should have been known (from a jobsite inspection) and included in any Proposal by a bidding contractor.