Providing Expert Solutions For Projects Worldwide

Providing Expert Solutions For Projects Worldwide

Phone: (610) 640-9600

Fax: (484) 301-0969

What Standard? Under Whose Care?

What Standard? Under Whose Care?

What Standard? Under Whose Care?

By Robert C. McCue, PE and E. Mitchell Swann, PE
MDCSystems® Consulting Engineers

Can a Designer or Owner shift responsibility for design errors and omissions by requiring an enhanced effort for construction coordination drawings by contractors?

To answer this question we will recount an example project that was bid as Design-Bid-Build where the fundamental element of the dispute was design defects with regard to spatial arrangement and sizing of system features. Responsibility for system sizing and coordination and to what standard it is performed are key elements of this example.

In this example the Owner tried to obtain support for their defense to design errors by making a series of Design Build and performance specification arguments regarding the Contractor’s responsibility to find and correct these errors.

The popularity of the Design Build model and the additional freedom it provides to Owners may be subtly influencing the types of practical project execution Owners are employing regardless of the actual contract mechanism in use.

The project concerned an institutional building located in a foreign state. The contracts were written and let as a Design-Bid-Build and the Owner had separate and independent contracts with the Design Professionals and the General Contractor\Construction Manager. The Designers provided bid and issued for construction documents. The issued for construction documents contained system configurations and equipment that did not comply with the local building codes or standards. Failure to comply with code is typically prima facia evidence of failure to meet the applicable standard of care. However, in this particular instance there were some questions as to what extent a “foreign” owner has to comply with local codes. However, that said, it is still incumbent upon a designer to satisfy the code, or advise an owner to obtain a variance.

The key issue in the dispute was the fundamental design system coordination, or lack thereof, which does not become evident until the construction period. The design drawings and specifications indicated/required certain equipment, devices, and materials to be installed in interstitial spaces. However, when the contractor attempted to detail his coordination drawings to install the identified scope it was discovered the systems wouldn’t fit within the required spaces.

Read More

Related Posts

Once Upon A Time In Construction: When Promises Fall Apart

Once Upon A Time In Construction: When Promises Fall Apart

Our client was distraught and blurted out “ they said it would work” and now we have to demolish it. How did this happen? During the mid-90’s it was feared by the EPA that landfills would soon be at capacity to accept sewage sluge and the EPA had recently banned ocean...

read more
MDCSystems® Taking Off with Commercial Drones

MDCSystems® Taking Off with Commercial Drones

MDCSystems® has recently entered the commercial drone industry with its drone for various inspection and engineering evaluation services. The future for the commercial drone industry looks very bright. In 2015 the U.S. commercial drone market size was an estimated...

read more

0 Comments