punchlist work not to be performed

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 732 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 04:53 pm:    Has anyone had experience with an owner deciding to have certain punchlist corrective work not be performed by the contractor, and instead negotiating a credit (to be applied to the retainage) for the cost what it would have taken the contractor to perform that corrective work? I don’t see this addressed in A201 but may have missed it. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP, AIA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 183 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 05:18 pm:    Hi Dave. The owner is accepting non-conforming Work, something only the Owner has the authority to do under AIA A201. Hopefully, such acceptance would be documented by Change Order. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 411 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 05:57 pm:    In certain types of work this is done all the time. For instance, spec office buildings. I always preferred to keep out of that "stage" of the work. The exception being anything that was "life/Safety" or could have long term performance issues on the project. Foe example, if I thought that the assembly the Owner was going to accept would be prone to leakage I would write that up, state that we did not recommend the work, and send to the Owner. I did that so if the Owner came back at the AE, we could say "we told you so." David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1719 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 08:45 pm:    Yes! Years ago for some reason it was almost impossible to get the Contractor to finish the project. So Owners would cave and start scratching things off the punchlist. Oh well. It is their building and so long as the Architect and Specifier won't get sued over it, then it is what it is. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 660 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 09:59 pm:    We do big hospitals and it usually isn't worth the time and effort to have the Contractor fix every interior finish issue. The real damage will occur during owner move in and fit out. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 734 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 02:34 pm:    Thanks all. Actually this is addressed in A201, in 12.3 § 12.3 Acceptance of Nonconforming Work If the Owner prefers to accept Work that is not in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Owner may do so instead of requiring its removal and correction, in which case the Contract Sum will be reduced as appropriate and equitable. Such adjustment shall be effected whether or not final payment has been made. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1760 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 01:23 pm:    Dave, My experience was that on almost every job there was some sort of negotiation to accept a credit for work not completed, or non-conforming work, that remained on the punch list. As noted, sometimes these were defects in finishes that ultimately had little impact on the usability of the building. Rarely was it done for anything of real consequence. Usually accompanying this process was the feeling that "we just want to be done and get on with [whatever occurs in the building]." In the end, as others noted, it's their building. This also typically meant the architect had to put a value on every single incomplete item in the punch list, which on public work, we were accustomed to doing anyway.