Question 1

"Dispute Resolution" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(15m) Brian Weeks discusses the topic of Dispute Resolution under MMCD rules. He explains,

• The need for a process

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 2

"The Importance of the Agreement" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(15m) In this presentation, Brian Weeks highlights some of the critical features of the document called the 'Agreement' in the Master Municipal Construction Document regime.

The Agreement is the most important document in all the documents that form a complete construction contract. As such, it is vital that all parties (owners, contractors and the contract administrator) know what it enables and disallows.

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 3

"3 Ways to Change a Subcontractor" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(15m) In this video Brian Weeks discusses why an Owner might want to change a Subcontractor and the 3 ways this can be possible using the Master Municipal Construction Documents.

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 4

"GC 12 May Not be Enough" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(9m) General Condition 12 in the MMCD deals with the discovery of unexpected hazardous materials during the course of a construction project.

The Master Municipal Construction Documents were specifically designed to create contracts for sub-grade municipal infrastructure such as sewers, waterline and other utilities. The very nature of this type of work implies unknown conditions. Since it is not practical to do geotechnical investigations continuously along the proposed route of a new project, we must expect surprises. One type of surprise is the discovery of unexpected hazardous materials.

A core philosophy supporting the MMCD is that risk should be apportioned based on who can best manage it. Also, we do not want bidders to have to include large contingency amounts for unknown risks on every tender. So how do we put these objectives into effect concerning hazardous materials? Find out in this 9-minute presentation by Brian Weeks.

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 5

"Force Account Schedules - An Awful Idea" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(10m) In this video, Brian Weeks hopes to convince you that the MMCD Association got it right when they intentionally did not require tenderers to submit schedules of force account rates as part of the required tender package.

Brian provides a better solution to the problem that prompts Owners to ask for such schedules.

Find out more in this 10-minute presentation, and watch more Contract Considerations videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 6

"Partial vs. Staged Substantial Performance" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(14m) In this short video, Brian hopes to clarify for you the difference between Partial Substantial Performance, which is illegal, and Staged Substantial Performance, which is permitted in BC.

NB: Due to the ever changing nature of the law, anyone who has a significant concern regarding liens, holdback, and holdback releases, should get up-to-date legal advice from a lawyer.

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 7

"Prime Contractor Responsibilities" video - Contract Consideration Series

Accepted Answer

(12m) Brian Weeks outlines the responsibilities of the Prime Contractor and discusses the implications of designating the general contractor as the prime contractor for WorkSafeBC purposes.

Watch this and other Contract Consideration videos on MMCD Association's YouTube Channel.

Question 8

Can you please help me understand DELETION of work versus REJECTION of work, and to what the contractor is entitled in either case?

Accepted Answer

QUESTION

I am the CA for an MMCD Contract to which the nature of the work is using trenchless technology under 33 05 24.

The Owner has requested a particular type of treatment work related to the sewer interface at service connections be deleted from the contract in its entirety as the contractor has not been able to demonstrate good workmanship, best practices and meet the specifications to rehabilitate underground infrastructure.

The CA, as well as third-party QA review and testing on work completed to date on a separate item, agrees with the Owner to not peruse this item as work not performed in it entirety.

I have reviewed the document to help determine what the contractor is entitled to, to which my understanding is

Since the entire pay item is rejected in its entirety, the amount the Contractor should be entitled to is the bare cost of materials, plus freight, plus OH&P at 20% on those materials

If I could seek your opinion on how to better understand the deletion of work vs the rejection of work, and if an item is deleted or reject example exists (what is entitled to the contractor), as these examples were mentioned in Volume 1 but later supplemented with none? Also if you have any guidance as to my determination and its value are as per contract documents intentions.

COMMENT

If [we] understand your situation correctly, the contractor has done some work on the item the Owner wishes to delete in its entirety. The Owner’s motivation is a belief that the Contractor is incapable of meeting the project specifications. You wish to know if the deletion of the item is as simple as applying GC9.4.3.1 or if the lack of quality of the work to date means some other method is appropriate.

First let [us] clarify one point. Your comment “Deletion of the work the contractor is entitled to 20% of 85% of Tender value of the deleted item as per 9.4.3(1)” is not correct. Even if one were to use 9.4.3 (1), the Contractor must prove to the CA’s satisfaction the % of the line item bid price that was for overheads and profit. It does not default to 20%. That was simply the number chosen for the example in the User Guide. Similarly your comment about 20% later in your question is also incorrect.

To summarize, if [we] were to do this [we] would:

Again, [we] stress that your lawyer may have a different interpretation of this situation. Nevertheless, [we] would do this calculation to get an “order of magnitude” amount for discussion with the lawyer before finalizing an Initial Decision under either GC.

Question 9

What are the MMCD spec recommendations for aggregate used for bedding residential waterlines in boulevards and the depth requrements for Saanich and Victoria?

Accepted Answer

QUESTION

Can you please tell me your spec recommendations are for the aggregate to be used for bedding residential waterlines in boulevards and the depth requirements for Saanich and Victoria?

COMMENT

Section 33 11 01 Item 2.6. Granular Pipe Bedding and Surround Material says

Question 10

Whose role is it to prepare payment certificates?

Accepted Answer

QUESTION:

We have entered into a contract with a local municipality using the MMCD. Payment is to follow the MMCD…there are no additional agreements or conditions. The design engineer is the CA. The CA is refusing to prepare Payment Certificates, they maintain that it is the role of the Contractor.

Whose role is it?

If it is the role of the CA, how would you recommend we move forward?

COMMENT

GC3.5.1 says: