Question 1

Is there recourse for the Contractor when an Owner Caused Delay affects Substantial Completion?

Accepted Answer

QUESTION

On a regular MMCD utility rehabilitation contract between contractor and municipality, the project is near completion, but not within the strict definition of Substantial Performance. The Owner has told the contractor to not go ahead with the remaining work, as it is at a separate site and the site is not ready. There is no schedule for the site to be made ready. The contractor wants Substantial Performance granted on the work completed to date, as it is at a separate site and is now being used by the Owner. They want the lien holdback clock to start so they can get their 10% back on the work completed. Is there any recourse for the contractor?

COMMENT

"The Contractor wants substantial completion on the work completed to date as it is a separate site and is now being used by the owner. They want the lien holdback clock to start so they can get their 10% back on the work completed."

Reference GC 10.3.2 Delays which are the Owners’ responsibility Section 3 page 45 05 52 User Guide

The User Guide (10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2) suggests that Owner caused delays (per GC13.1) entitle the Contractor to reimbursement for costs and lost time. In this case, the CA must act impartially and issue a Change Order for the proven impact, even if the CA was the cause of the delay.

The Contract Considerations video “Partial vs Staged Substantial Completion" discusses methods of reducing the work remaining under the contract and processing a request for substantial performance. A new contract for the balance of the work may be required (see video).

Question 2

Does encountering a concealed condition meet the intent of GC 13.1 Delay by Owner, or GC 13.5 Delays for Additional Instructions?

Accepted Answer

QUESTION

I would like some clarification on the General Conditions of a MMCD contract as they relate to delay claims for encountering concealed or unknown conditions. Specifically the time period from encountering the condition to the Contractor making the decision to move to another area of the job site and the lost production time in mobilizing / de-mobilizing. The remediation of the condition I fully understand is a Change and can be dealt with accordingly.

My question is, does encountering a concealed condition meet the intent of GC 13.1 Delay by Owner or GC 13.5 Delays for Additional Instructions?

My interpretation would be a concealed condition meets both but if so, which one governs for payment of delay costs?

COMMENT

GC 11.1.1 gives three criteria for “Concealed or Unknown Condition”:

GC 13.1.1 says that a delay to the Contractor by the Owner must be caused by a specific act or omission by the CA the Owner, employees and agents.

Is there recourse for the Contractor when an Owner Caused Delay affects Substantial Completion?

Does encountering a concealed condition meet the intent of GC 13.1 Delay by Owner, or GC 13.5 Delays for Additional Instructions?

Not many results?