GC wrote this is in...

[Alwayslearningelec]

GC I'm bidding project to wrotew this in thier document and wants me to agree. I think it's BS. The engineer/PE should be responsible to show all required work. Thoughts?

 

[infinity]

My boss would take a pen and cross it out and then initial it.

 

[jaggedben]

Yeah that's way too broad.

 

[jaggedben]

Like, I might be okay with 'minor detail that is necessary for a code compliant installation'. But this language could be used to put you on the hook if the AHJ and PE/designer disagree about what's code compliant on some major aspect. That's unacceptable.

 

[Strathead]

Like, I might be okay with 'minor detail that is necessary for a code compliant installation'. But this language could be used to put you on the hook if the AHJ and PE/designer disagree about what's code compliant on some major aspect. That's unacceptable.

I may also agree with accessory. That would be like aircraft cable for a fixture that are listed in the part number.

 

[zbang]

If not striking out the whole thing, strike out the last nine words ("at no additional cost"); I don't mind an extra fitting or two and the cost for that is probably minimal, but if the PE left something out, like a 400a disconnect, I'm not the one paying for it.

 

[ron]

No engineering bid drawings shows all detail needed to result in a complete and functional installation. It is an implied statement that the EC will provide what is needed, just not called out on a drawing.
Just think of pullboxes, conduit couplings, etc.

 

[jap]

That's a pretty common statement found on most job bids.
Just be sure to clarify your quote.

Jap>

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

The specs, plans, and bid documents cannot, and will not, show every single locknut, wire connector, screw, junction box, strap, piece of uni-strut, etc.

Some sub-contractors will use that to try and CO the everlasting sunofagun out of a project, so there has to be some kind of verbiage that negates that.

It sad but factual that things that should be obvious like that, need to be spelled out, but that’s what happens when people refuse to live with honor, especially in their business.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

GCs rely on their specialty sub contractors to know more about their specific trade than they do, and that is what the RFI process is for. If the EC sees that something is a glaring code violation, or something is missed or unbuildable as drawn, he should submit an RFI for clarification, and now all the subs are on the same page.

It used to be standard practice for a contractor to pour over a set of plans looking for what was missed, then submit a low bid with the plan to make up the required profit on exorbitant COs once you have the customer over a barrel.

There was a large road building contractor that did a job in my area many years ago that was famous for that. They built a 12 mile highway bypass and made more on the COs than they did on the original contract.

Language like this is intended to curtail that behavior.

 

[infinity]

Yes these types of things appear in contracts all of the time but this one is exceptionally broad.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

Yes these types of things appear in contracts all of the time but this one is exceptionally broad.

I certainly don’t have the experience many of you guys here do, but I see that language, almost verbatim, on most of the PW projects I bid.

 

[jap]

I certainly don’t have the experience many of you guys here do, but I see that language, almost verbatim, on most of the PW projects I bid.

What's a PW project?

Jap>

 

[mtnelect]

What's a PW project?

Jap>

Public Works

 

[jim dungar]

GCs rely on their specialty sub contractors to know more about their specific trade than they do, and that is what the RFI process is for.

They also expect their subcontractors to know what local and current requirements might come into play. Nationally prepared plans/specs are used in many different communities without taking into account local codes or power company requirements. I have seen contractors order incorrect or unsuitable equipment and then try to use CO to get the proper stuff on site instead of using an RFI before the contract.

 

[jaggedben]

I understand why they want it, but I would re-write it so that can only be construed to apply only to minor items that are implied by the drawings and within the scope contracted for.

 

[infinity]

I understand why they want it, but I would re-write it so that can only be construed to apply only to minor items that are implied by the drawings and within the scope contracted for.

I agree. Let's say there a fire pump on the 50th floor that they left off of the drawings and you don't have it in your estimate. Now they say " it's necessary for a complete and functional installation" and want you to eat the installation of 50 stories of 2 hour rated MC cable.

 

[mtnelect]

In my early days of starting out in the world of contracting ... I bid a job for a small shopping center. The bid documents stated not to include the lighting because the tenants have not been selected yet. So, our bid was selected. Before we signed, the developer asks if our bid included the lighting. We said no, because the documents stated not to include the lighting.

That was my first inclination that the bidding process was flawed.

After several more run ins with developers and taking a General Contractor to court on a Mechanics Lein (which took me five years to settle) I changed to being a HVAC service contractor. Best move I ever made !

 

[mtnelect]

I remember a game show called "Can You Name That Tune" ... You had to name that tune within three notes. Contracting is similar to that show.
To win a "Bid" you have to be the "Low Bidder" ... Congratulations you are the low "Bidder" ... What did I leave out ?

 

[mtnelect]

Then comes the best part ... the general asks you if you could do some work that he forgot about. If you will do it for free ... I will compensate you on the next job.