Hoisting under Separate Prime Contracts

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

Author Message James R Stewart, RA, CCS Advanced Member Username: jim_stewart Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 09:38 am:    Being new to this firm I've found that the company's master section for hoisting under the "Multiple Contracts Summary" has been reversed from the MasterSpec standard provision of having the GC do "Special or unusual hoisting including for loads over 2 tons and below grade and outside building". They have assigned this responsibility to each contractor and for any "general hoisting up to 2 tons" as the responsibility of the GC. The main subject of our in-house discussion has been that of liability of one contractor hoisting materials of another. There is no contractual relationship between the prime contractors and if one should damage the material of another then we get into a ()(^%$(( contest. The suggested update is to have each do all of their hoisting. If anyone is aware of any logic behind specifying one method over another I would appreciate your response. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 630 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 10:12 am:    Is this a public project in Pennsylvania? Sounds like it. Here in Massachusetts we have filed-sub bids, which is like multiple prime contracts, except that the "trades" remain subcontractors to the general. Anyway, we need to carefully and fully parse the work as you would in multiple prime contracts. The general practice here depends upon the trade, and the preferences of the awarding authority. I have seen it done both ways. DCAM (the state's building owning and leasing agency) calls for all hoisting to be done by the general contractor, and staging over 8 feet by the general contractor unless the individual spec section calls out otherwise. In our practice, for example, we require the masonry trade to do their own hoisting and staging, but not HVAC. However, one distinction between multiple primes and and filed sub-bids is that there is a direct contractual relationship between the general contractor and the filed-sub bids. This doesn't exist in the multiple prime scenario, so requiring each prime to do their own hoisting makes sense to me. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 428 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 04:33 pm:    I have done work in Pennsylvania and on our projects we have typically been able to require that the General Contractor provides all the hoisting and hoisting facilities. in essence, the various trades simply hire the GC to do that work for them, as a subcontractor. I think it makes for a cleaner project and it keeps you from having multiple hoists and staging areas on the project site. the Pennsylvania requirements also suggest that each of the multiple primes provide their staging, toilets, and other facilities, and yet that is often "subcontracted" out to the same provider as well. it is as if one of the primes then becomes a "super-prime" simply to provide those shared services.