Post Number: 44
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 09:07 am: |
The truck carrying 6 RTUs from the factory to our site was in an accident. The units were banged up, but still functional. Since the project schedule was only 10 weeks, and turnover was scheduled for later that week, the Owner agreed to let the GC put them up saying we'll deal with it later.
Well, it's later, and now I need to advise the Owner. The manufacturer tested and inspected the units. They say it's only superficial damage. They are more than willing to repair, and may provide an extended warranty.
I need to have our engineers inspect the units and then advise the Owner. No one in the project team has ever experienced this before. Our engineers are reluctant to inspect the inner working of the units. Has anyone experienced this before? Are there "experts" who can look at these units and evaluate the damage?
|Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI|
Post Number: 698
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 09:17 am: |
What about having the Owner hire an independent testing/inspection firm to do the inspection, and to ascretain if, indeed, the damage is superficial and that the units function fully as required. There are firms that do this type of forensic work.
Also a properly written [to your owner's benefit] extended warranty seems to be in order. Owner may need legal counsel here.
|Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS|
Post Number: 29
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 09:23 am: |
Where is this at? Can you give some contact information? My firm might be interested.
|John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA|
Post Number: 787
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 09:33 am: |
First, I think your engineers are more worried about their own perceived liability than they are about having a satisfied client. There is no reason they can't check out the units as best they can and state what they observed. They are not guaranteeing that there is no hidden damage, and they can say that in their report. This is no different than an inspection of the conditions of an existing building. Tell them to stop wimping out and step up to the plate.
Get the manufacturer to put in writing (if you can) what they observed.
Then, the client has knowledge of the likelihood of future premature failure and can make an educated decision on how to handle it. They got the benefit of getting open on schedule but, arguably, they did not get new units. They could ask for equitable compensation in the form of an extended warranty (how much is that worth) or a reduction in the cost of the units.
Post Number: 45
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 09:53 am: |
Thanks, for the assistance in thinking this through.
The Owner was going to contract directly for the inspections, but it turned out to be too hard for them.
This is in the Boston Ma area.
The engineers are willing to inspect and clarify that they can't inspect what they can't see, but I would like to know if there is something more we can do. They know where to look for wear, but may miss damage from impact that someone with more experience would see. In the baseball analogy, they are willing to step to the plate, but as their coach I want them to get a hit, not strike out. The manufacture has sent a report to the Owner, and it should be in my hands today or tomorrow.
|David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI|
Post Number: 901
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 01:15 pm: |
Personally I would be a little leery about using "damaged" goods but don't see a problem with an extended warranty.
If you want an inspection, why not have the product representative or factory authorized repair person inspect the units. After all, it is in the best interest of the manufacturer to keep the units operating and not have to constantly repair a damage/defective unit on their nickel.