Scribd
Upload
82 views4 pages

Claim Management Assignment

This document contains details of 4 cases involving contractors and clients/owners. For Case 1, the summary is: The contractor's claim for additional costs due to the owner illegally removing their approved subcontractor is valid, and the engineer appears biased towards the owner. For Case 2, the contractor has rights to compensation as defects were due to inspection errors, not following standards, and slab thickness was a minor issue. For Case 3, the contractor should not be accused of delays as designs were inadequate and conditions differed from drawings, despite completing ahead of schedule. For Case 4, extensive research costs for change proposals could be compensable, but the client likely won this case as initial contract did not include such costs.

Uploaded by

Tatheer Zehra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views4 pages

Claim Management Assignment

This document contains details of 4 cases involving contractors and clients/owners. For Case 1, the summary is: The contractor's claim for additional costs due to the owner illegally removing their approved subcontractor is valid, and the engineer appears biased towards the owner. For Case 2, the contractor has rights to compensation as defects were due to inspection errors, not following standards, and slab thickness was a minor issue. For Case 3, the contractor should not be accused of delays as designs were inadequate and conditions differed from drawings, despite completing ahead of schedule. For Case 4, extensive research costs for change proposals could be compensable, but the client likely won this case as initial contract did not include such costs.

Uploaded by

Tatheer Zehra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

NAME: TATHEER ZEHRA

ROLLNO: CE-058/2022

CASE 1
[Link] you regard the owner's actions in directing removal of the
sub as interference? Why, or why not?
. In this case, the government’s action is termed as interference for
convenience as the government can negotiate only with the contractor
with whom agreement is signed. For any delay in the work progress,
the first contractor is to be held responsible by the owner
. secondly the contractor claims for compensation to recover additional
costs incurred in getting a second painting subcontractor and damages
for which it may be held liable to the first subcontractor is valid as client
is illogically demanding for new subcontractor.
. the claim of the engineer is also not valid as it looks in the favor of the
owner.
2. What do you think was the outcome of this ease?
The contractor claims to recover additional costs incurred in getting a
second painting subcontractor and damages for which it may be held
liable to the first subcontractor is valid as here owner is removing
subcontractor illogically because he has no proof of subcontractor
being wrong so his action is termed as interference therefore he should
pay all the extra cost and it looks that engineer is also in favor of
government thus denying the contractor claim that is valid
CASE 2
1. Discuss the contractor's apparent rights to an equitable adjustment
in this case. What facts of the case are in his favor?
The government wanted to sue the contractor for the latent defects
but actually the defects were not latent it was mainly the mistake of
the inspection
The contractor was following industrial practices which is another plus
point for contractor
The inspection was not good was also another benefit for the
contractor

2. Assume that you are the Appeals Board Judge hearing this case.
Write your decision, stating the reasons for your finding
If I would be the appeal board judge, I would have given my decision in
favor of contractor as he was following the industrial practices so he is
being intellectual
and client argument is very inadequate considering the slab thickness
was not that much big issue
therefore, there is no reason for contractor to pay reimbursement

CASE 3
[Link] the contractor's apparent rights to an equitable adjustment
in this case. What facts of the case are in his favor?
Although contractor completed the work ahead of schedule, it stated
that difficulties prevented it from completing the job even sooner as
per the submitted schedule.
The contractor encountered a number of unexpected difficulties while
working on the project with government-designed drawings and
specifications.
the design was inadequate, misleading, and not in accordance with
good engineering practice. The difference between the rock elevation
in the design and those actually encountered, it claimed, was the most
significant problem. The drawings indicated that subsurface soils had
low permeability when, in fact, the opposite condition existed,
necessitating extensive dewatering operations.
[Link] that you are the Appeals Board Judge hearing this case.
Write your decision, stating the reasons for your finding.
My decision would be in favor of contractor because despite of all
difficulties such as inadequate designs difference between rock
elevation in drawing and in actual shows significant difference also
subsurface soils had low permeability still contractor was able to
complete the project ahead of schedule therefore contractor shouldn’t
be accused.

CASE 4
[Link] general, do you think that research time and preparation time for
change proposals should be compensable?
The extent of the investigation will determine whether time for change
recommendations are compensable or not. If the research's scope is
vast and requires a lot of time and effort and work, then it should be
compensable otherwise it is not reasonable to give extra research and
preparation time for change proposals.
[Link] do you think was the outcome of this case?
My prediction for the case's outcome is that the client would win.
These expenditures were not included in the initial contract price
because all actions would be carried out in accordance with what was
and wasn't stated in the contract. Research expenses won't be
reimbursable.

You might also like