EC Responciblity

[transman2]

I have an electrical contractor on a large job that had to install a ground ring and ground rods around footing foundations but it was stated in the SOW that the pigtale from the footing rebar would be in place and complete before the work described in the contract begins. This seems unusual to me that the Engineer would have worded it this way. So 2 years later and no rebar grounded because no one mentioned it was missed or not done. The drawing show it should be done but the EC did not mention that no one installed the pigtale for them to tie to.

Is it the responsibility of the EC to let the customer know it was left out and they didnt do it?

 

[Sierrasparky]

I have an electrical contractor on a large job that had to install a ground ring and ground rods around footing foundations but it was stated in the SOW that the pigtale from the footing rebar would be in place and complete before the work described in the contract begins. This seems unusual to me that the Engineer would have worded it this way. So 2 years later and no rebar grounded because no one mentioned it was missed or not done. The drawing show it should be done but the EC did not mention that no one installed the pigtale for them to tie to.

Is it the responsibility of the EC to let the customer know it was left out and they didnt do it?

If this work was not in the scope the EC was contracted it is not the EC problem.
You owners and engineers can't have it both ways. There are laws to protect the EC in this case. Looks like your claim is with the Engineer.

 

[roger]

If this work was not in the scope the EC was contracted it is not the EC problem.
Looks like your claim is with the Engineer.

I agree.

Roger

 

[petersonra]

I have an electrical contractor on a large job that had to install a ground ring and ground rods around footing foundations but it was stated in the SOW that the pigtale from the footing rebar would be in place and complete before the work described in the contract begins. This seems unusual to me that the Engineer would have worded it this way. So 2 years later and no rebar grounded because no one mentioned it was missed or not done. The drawing show it should be done but the EC did not mention that no one installed the pigtale for them to tie to.

Is it the responsibility of the EC to let the customer know it was left out and they didnt do it?

IMO, the EC (and really any sub) has an obligation to tell whomever he is contracted to about any situation that affects his ability to complete the work contracted for.

I don't know how common such wording is but it is not unusual for a contract to stipulate the interface between and limits of contracts between different contractors and that seems to be what was done here.

It seems to me that making sure the contract was fulfilled by each sub is the responsibility of the GC.

However, presumably the EC's SOW included hooking up to the rebar. How did the EC get past this requirement when he certified under oath that he had completed the work?

 

[growler]

IMO, the EC (and really any sub) has an obligation to tell whomever he is contracted to about any situation that affects his ability to complete the work contracted for.

I agree that the EC should have informed the GC ( superintendent ) about this problem.


I also think there is plenty of blame to go around on this one. On a big job the GC will have his superintendent and maybe an engineer or two on the job to check that things are correct before the concrete was even poured. This could end up as an expensive little mistake and I doubt the EC will end up paying for it.

 

[roger]

IMO, the EC (and really any sub) has an obligation to tell whomever he is contracted to about any situation that affects his ability to complete the work contracted for.

I may or may not mention it, that would be my prerogative. If my SOW spelled out certain things would be performed that were to be furnished by others and others did not furnish said items, I would just continue completing the items in place. IMO, the GC has the responsibility to create a check list to insure things are done and the Engineer should have included some inspections to be sure the product he/she was charging the for was what the customer got.


Why weren't the GC and Engineer doing their jobs?

I might agree that the cost of one connection (1/2 hr labor and one cadwweld shot) be refunded but that would be the extent of it.

Roger

 

[Sierrasparky]

Who said the EC left the job without connecting the pigtail. All whe know is that it was 2 years later, ( from what) the day the slab was poured? For all when know is the EC at the time of Final said the owner " Hey I have no rebar to connect to " Told you should have hired me for that!!!! HA Ha Ha:lol::?

 

[AV ELECTRIC]

who was responsible for installing the rebar . probably not the EC . should the EC have said something ? yes. is he responsible? no.

is it the responsibility of the electrical contractor to make sure this rebar was installed before the pour ?

you could maybe equate it to the drywall installer covering up your boxes . do you need to be there during the drywall process to make sure this doesnt happen .

 

[roger]

you could maybe equate it to the drywall installer covering up your boxes

Not really, the boxes would be yours to install, in this case the CEE was not included in the EC's scope only making the connection to it.

I would equate it to hookiing up a piece of cooking equipment supplied by the owner. If a certain item shown on the Food Service drawing is not supplied the only thing I would owe is the labor and some material credit.

BTW, I do like the idea of the CEE being the GC's responsibility.

Roger

 

[petersonra]

I still want to know how the EC gets around his certification under oath that all the work in his scope was properly completed.

after 2 years it is going to be tough to place any blame on anyone other than the GC, who really is responsible for the problem.

Whether anyone else has any responsibility is something else.

 

[roger]

I still want to know how the EC gets around his certification under oath that all the work in his scope was properly completed.

He completed everything that was there to complete, if an items doesn't exist the EC can't hook it up.

after 2 years it is going to be tough to place any blame on anyone other than the GC, who really is responsible for the problem.

I agree but, the Engineer is also responsible for not following up on whether his design is being put in as called for. He must not have done periodic or even a final walk through.

Whether anyone else has any responsibility is something else.

I think the GC, Engineer, and Inspector sums it up.

Roger

 

[petersonra]

He completed everything that was there to complete, if an items doesn't exist the EC can't hook it up.

he signed a form to get paid that said he did all the work he was contracted to do. he didn't sign a form saying he did most of it,or all but this item. how does he get past that?

I agree there are other people who are also on the hook but the EC screwed up by claiming he did work that he did not do.

I don't see the engineer as being the field inspector unless that is part of his contract.

 

[roger]

he signed a form to get paid that said he did all the work he was contracted to do. he didn't sign a form saying he did most of it,or all but this item. how does he get past that?

Have you seen his contract or final billing? Regardless, he could do as I said earlier, refund a 1/2 hr labor and the cost of one cadweld load, then the GC and/or Engineer would have no complaint with the EC.

I agree there are other people who are also on the hook but the EC screwed up by claiming he did work that he did not do.

Once again, you don't know what he claimed or how his contract read. When the EC finished everything that was available to be hooked up he presented his final billing and deserved to be paid. If the GC had done some type of check list and punch list this might have been brought up and could have been handled then. I would side with the GC if he wanted a $40.00 credit.

I don't see the engineer as being the field inspector unless that is part of his contract.

And I don't see the EC having to do the Engineers QC. With that said, when the EC finished everything that was available to be hooked up he presented his final billing and deserved to be paid. If the Engineer had done some type of check list and punch list this might have been brought up and could have been handled then. I would side with the Engineer if he wanted a $40.00 credit.

Roger

 

[petersonra]

I think you are giving the EC way too much of a pass.

OTOH, it seems to me that the GC is the guy who has the ultimate responsibility. If it is a $40 item like you are saying the EC should volunteer to go hook it up once it is excavated so he can get at it.

 

[roger]

OTOH, it seems to me that the GC is the guy who has the ultimate responsibility. If it is a $40 item like you are saying the EC should volunteer to go hook it up once it is excavated so he can get at it.

I agree with that.

Roger

 

[Sierrasparky]

I seriously doubt that the EC said nothing to the GC. The GC did not listen or cared at the time. I see this crap all the time. I have been on jobs and pointed things out that will make my job un completable as per contract. I go by several years later and it is still not done. Sometimes these GC's feel it will just get done by itself or as long as nobody notices and the job passes inspection then it is ok!.

 

[GoldDigger]

I seriously doubt that the EC said nothing to the GC. The GC did not listen or cared at the time. I see this crap all the time. I have been on jobs and pointed things out that will make my job un completable as per contract. I go by several years later and it is still not done. Sometimes these GC's feel it will just get done by itself or as long as nobody notices and the job passes inspection then it is ok!.

Which leads me to observe that whether the EC should say anything directly to the customer or just to the GC (legally that is) will depend on whether his contract is with the customer or with the GC and whether the GC is acting as the customer's representative for contract-related issues.