outrageous and one sided contract language

[flatlander]

Hi all,
I was wondering if you electrical contractors out there are seeing abusive language in subcontracts from General Contractors or owners

I'm talking about where if you succeed in a change order you only get 10% above your actual cost, while the contractor gets 15 % overhead and on top of that 10 % profit.

Or contractor will not pay subcontractor for a change order unless paid by the owner first. Even if a signed change is agreed to

Or
At any time after execution of the contract the owner or contractor can require a 100% performance bond at the cost of the subcontractor.

If the owner escalates the time schedule the subcontractor will provide extra workers or overtime without extra charge.


Stuff like this.

 

[Little Bill]

First, I wouldn't agree to or sign a contractor's contract. I would leave that one on the table.
I present my contract/terms and they either accept it or I walk. Everything in my terms is fair to all parties.

 

[flatlander]

I would not sign such either.
My question is if others have been seeing this sort of thing.

 

[kwired]

Robbery is not a crime if you sign any kind of agreement that says the thief can take such advantage of you.

Maybe hand it back unsigned and ask how much they expect you to have to pay them to to the job for them.

 

[petersonra]

If you don't like the terms they are offering you are free to offer terms to them that you approve of. They on the other hand are free to not accept your terms. Generally speaking these things are not surprises. They are often in the specifications or contract documents that you get when you bid. If you don't like the terms that the specifications are contract documents offer you are free to propose your own terms as part of the bid.

 

[flatlander]

I don't know if you folks are aware that asking for a sub to supply a 100% performance bond some time into the atctual project is a impossibility. It cant happen. No bond company is going oi issue a new bond on work already performed. Ain't gonna happen . If it does it would be rare.

My original question was if you contractors out there are starting to see this onerous and unethical language.
Heck I'm not foolish enough to sign but I am sure there is someone that will.

 

[kwired]

I don't know if you folks are aware that asking for a sub to supply a 100% performance bond some time into the atctual project is a impossibility. It cant happen. No bond company is going oi issue a new bond on work already performed. Ain't gonna happen . If it does it would be rare.

My original question was if you contractors out there are starting to see this onerous and unethical language.
Heck I'm not foolish enough to sign but I am sure there is someone that will.

That is what business is all about these days, don't trust anyone and get whatever you can when you can, don't matter what type of business it is either.

 

[Cow]

Hi all,
I was wondering if you electrical contractors out there are seeing abusive language in subcontracts from General Contractors or owners

I'm talking about where if you succeed in a change order you only get 10% above your actual cost,

Our latest project has that in it in addition to the two below:

Only materials installed can be invoiced per the SOV, not materials stored on site.

Owner reserves the right to hire another EC(s) to do a portion of the project, and we are required to give a credit for the work we bid, but didn't perform.

These are the ones that stick out in my mind...

 

[brantmacga]

I would not sign such either.
My question is if others have been seeing this sort of thing.

Yes.... not on a regular basis though. Just don’t sign it; everything is negotiable. If not, then walk away.

I haven’t seen the language about a performance bond being required after the fact though.

The language I see the most that I won’t agree to is the change-order T&M + 10%, and trying to stretch the payment terms, which a lot of GC’s seem to be trying to do now. They’re (owners) trying to add a lot of change-orders after the job starts that should’ve been in the original scope, limit your markup, and then hold that money until the project is complete. So basically the owner wants you to finance part of the job at 0%. If you read your job specs the contract between the owner and GC is typically included there, and you can see what BS they’re trying to force on the GC, and right on down to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brantmacga]

outrageous and one sided contract language

Our latest project has that in it in addition to the two below:

Only materials installed can be invoiced per the SOV, not materials stored on site.

Alright then, let’s wait to order fixtures and gear until it’s time to install, and then we can all sit for 8/wks while waiting on them to show up!

Owner reserves the right to hire another EC(s) to do a portion of the project, and we are required to give a credit for the work we bid, but didn't perform.

These are the ones that stick out in my mind...

I guess you had to provide a cost on every phase up-front? I’ve never seen this in a contract but I had an instance where the GC wanted to use another contractor for a portion of the work I was going to sub out before we signed a contract; I deducted the amount but was able to roll all my O&P for that work into the scope we were left with. Which I was completely fine with as it was one less bill we had to pay but still made the money.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JFletcher]

When I did commercial Telecom years ago, we always work for the owner, not the general contractor. Was a double-edged sword, we didn't have to listen to the general contractor, or put up with him, he was also under no obligation to help us in any way shape or form. Most projects went well with just a simple handshake and friendly terms, however we did have a few that were unbearable, and a few owners that tried add change order after change order under the original price.

After the first such job where the owner wanted everything including two kitchen sinks, we did not do change orders unless they were 100% paid up front, and we were not behind on payments for the phase we are on. No payment, no change orders... Simple as that.

There was really not much they can do about it since low voltage or voice / video / data guys we're hired / contracted last minute after the owner realized the electrical contractor did not include that in his contract.

As far as expecting the EC to finance the project, we are not banks.

Back then, we did a lot of work out of state/ long distance, and the thing that got screwed up the most was timetables. Owner or general contractor is screaming we need you now, rush to the site only to find they are not even halfway done with whatever phase they say they're completed. those jobs were contracted with a specific number of trips per phase, and many times no one wanted to pay for extra trips due to their mistakes.

 

[readydave8]

Back then, we did a lot of work out of state/ long distance, and the thing that got screwed up the most was timetables. Owner or general contractor is screaming we need you now, rush to the site only to find they are not even halfway done with whatever phase they say they're completed.

most extreme case I was involved with was when I worked for a company that installed Car Wash equipment

job was 150 miles away, yes GC screaming need it now

When we got there the walls were up but roof not started:?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The OP is not looking for advice. He is looking to see if others have seen these type of contracts. I see one response that has answered his question.

BTW, I have not seen or heard of that before but I generally don't do contract work

 

[infinity]

The company I work for does big projects with big price tags. The contracts are highly detailed, very long, and contain quite a bit of garbage that really puts the GC at an advantage. My boss takes his red pen and draws a big red line through the stuff that he doesn't like and initials it. It goes back to the GC and they can either accept or not accept his changes, the latter of which are then negotiated.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Hi all,
I was wondering if you electrical contractors out there are seeing abusive language in subcontracts from General Contractors or owners

yeah, i've seen stuff like that, but never on anything i've signed.
so it doesn't affect me.

it's a flashing red light that i've made a poor choice in someone to work for.
i'd much rather have something like this, and walk away, then the other
option, of having a vanilla contract, with you just not getting paid.

i had a contractor pull a purchase order in the bay area friday, for
a job i'm doing tomorrow. he'd given me two separate PO's, and cancelled
one of them after issuing.

so i drive six hours one way for one job, not two. round trip to san jose.

not a problem i have to worry about again, as i'm not answering the phone
if they call. they have sucked to work for for the last year, and i suspect they
have someone else to do my work going forward. i hope so, for their sake,
as it isn't me.

instead, i'm pulling paperwork for tuesdays job, so i have it in the vehicle,
so i can do tuesdays job on the way home.... from pismo beach.

as i don't have two jobs in the bay area, i'm gonna take the jeep, do san jose
first thing in the morning, and be jeeping in pismo my late morning. get a
room in pismo for the night, and leave early and get back to marina del rey
by 6 am tuesday.

job scheduling is important. this one is working out ok.

 

[flatlander]

The language I see the most that I won’t agree to is the change-order T&M + 10%, and trying to stretch the payment terms, which a lot of GC’s seem to be trying to do now. They’re (owners) trying to add a lot of change-orders after the job starts that should’ve been in the original scope, limit your markup, and then hold that money until the project is complete. So basically the owner wants you to finance part of the job at 0%. If you read your job specs the contract between the owner and GC is typically included there, and you can see what BS they’re trying to force on the GC, and right on down to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a twist I did not think of . I just thought the rate was below standard and unbalanced. Not that it was to be used to pay less for work always desired.

Wow.

 

[Nathangerke]

I have been experiencing, from multiple engineering firms in my area, that their specs are specifically designed to be generic while still coving the liability of the engineering firm.
Language like, any omitted information by the engineer or even approved submittals by the engineer are not the engineer's responsibility and any associated cost is the responsibility of the EC.

There is very little effort put into the specifications and they want to push any responsibility off on someone else.

 

[kwired]

I have been experiencing, from multiple engineering firms in my area, that their specs are specifically designed to be generic while still coving the liability of the engineering firm.
Language like, any omitted information by the engineer or even approved submittals by the engineer are not the engineer's responsibility and any associated cost is the responsibility of the EC.

There is very little effort put into the specifications and they want to push any responsibility off on someone else.

That is the trend these days from nearly all trades and professions. Everyone wants to be paid well, but doesn't want to do anything, and doesn't want to be responsible for anything either. Never used to work that way.

 

[sameguy]

Or the ever present, must meet code regardless of spec/ engineer/etc..
But yet, when I called before the bid to tell you your out of code with your spec. You told me no time just bid the print & spec.!
Lost many bids due to bidding correctly (what it should be) only to find winners got them as xtras.