ASSIGNMENT 2 'Commercial Building Contracts', check that you have followed the file naming convention for your first submission (e.g. YOURFAMILYNAME
ASSIGNMENT 2 'Commercial Building Contracts', check that you have followed the file naming convention for your first submission (e.g. YOURFAMILYNAME_3307_A2.pdf); If the answer is YES, then submit your documents into the ASSESSMENTS area of Canvas
Assessment brief
You are a consultant specializing in managing construction contract disputes and claims. Undertaking the role of Superintendent you have been asked to chair an extraordinary progress meeting and resolve a number of issues between the Architect, Main Contractor, and Sub-Contractor on the second phase of an $100 million multi-phase construction project for a Government office building.
The first stage of the project is in its 15th month and is approximately three weeks behind programme. The second stage (run by a different site team) is in its fourth month.
The form of contract used is the AS4000 1997 General Conditions of Contract.
The relationships of the various contractual parties on the first phase of the project has become strained. The main contractor decided to try and improve this by employing a different site team for the second phase of the project. However, the sub-contractors are similar teams as those employed on the first phase. The Architect has also insisted on keeping the same representative on site.
The following issues are to be discussed at the meeting:
Architects Issues
The Architect has noticed a 30m stretch of garden wall that is leaning at least 50mm out of plumb. He issued an instruction for this work to be put right four days ago and to date no action has been undertaken. He has also just noticed a similar section of brickwork on an area of wall that was built eight months ago on phase 1 and wants it put right.
The Architect is still waiting for a copy of the programme for the second phase of the project. This has consistently been promised by the contractor since the second phase began.
Whilst carrying out an unannounced site inspection, the Architect witnessed the plastering sub-contractor using the wrong sized plasterboard (10mm instead of 15mm). He made a written request ten days ago for the main contractor to ascertain how many units have been plastered using this size board, but to date no action has been undertaken.
A number of setting-out errors have been made, resulting in a group of piles being constructed in the wrong place, and a brick wall being built in an incorrect location. The Architect requires the main contractor to put this work right.
Main Contractors Issues
The main contractor wishes to make a point about a detail on the staircase drawings. He pointed out to the Architects representative on site (who telephoned the Architect in his presence) two weeks ago that if construction went ahead as per the drawing the staircase would have a pitch that was unacceptable under the requirements of the building code. Due to the design, construction of the staircase area was a critical activity and construction went ahead last week as per drawing. The building code authorities now want the staircase altered so it complies. The main contractor wishes to know if they will be paid for correcting the staircase and given additional time to do so. The main contractor has pointed out that on a previous occasion they altered the Architects design to enable a decorative planted area to be constructed more easily, only for the Architect to insist the work be taken down and rebuilt to the original design (which has been done). The main contractor wishes to know if they will be paid for this work and given additional time.
The main contractor is awaiting drawings showing the constructional details around a glass conservatory that were requested in writing three weeks ago. The construction of this item is now becoming critical.
The main contractor is reluctant to knock holes in the plasterboard to determine the number of units that have been plastered using the incorrect sized boards. They have just re-rendered a gable wall after knocking off some decorative render (the manufacturers warranty states that any patching of a rendered area will invalidate their warranty) to confirm it was the specified thickness at the Architects written request. The thickness proved adequate. They wish to know if they will be paid for this work and given additional time.
The main contractor has set out and built a wall in an incorrect position. This is the result of the Engineer using dimensions from a first floor drawing to set out the wall location on the ground floor. This was done because the Architect had not issued the ground floor layout drawings showing the correct wall position (due to design of other construction details in that area not being finalised). The main contractor wishes to know if they will be paid for correcting this and given additional time to do so.
The Architect has been insisting that the fill used under the driveways is not what was specified and wants it removed. This work was carried out as a favour by a sub-contractor as part of the package of the sub-let work at no charge.
Sub-Contractor Issues
The Engineer used by the sub-contractor has set out a group of piles in the wrong location from the Architects drawing. This was at the verbal request of the main contractor whose own Engineer had phoned in sick for that week. The main contractor is holding the sub-contractor responsible and insists on charging them for having the work put right.
The main contractor has noticed that the sub-contractor is using a cheaper grade of light switches than was specified and insists that they be changed. The sub-contractor has raised the matter in conversation with the Architect (who did not object). The main contractor is insisting that the sub-contractor provide quality certificates for the fill used under the driveways. This work was undertaken as a favour to the main contractor as a proviso of obtaining the bulk of the sub-contract work. The sub-contractor expresses their inexperience of this type of work and admits that a mistake was made.
Despite submitting a claim under the NSW Security of Payment Act, the sub-contractor is still awaiting payment from the main contractor some 8 weeks since submission of the claim.
NB: Assignment 2 (Contractual Issues) = 4000 words (not including contents page, diagrams, tables, reference lists, etc.).
Submission referencing
Author-Date methods (such as APA or Harvard) are required. Use a report format with a numerical hierarchy of headings and sub-headings. All sources must be referenced appropriately, and all figures and tables must be numbered, titled and integrated into the body of the report.
Submission format (a guide)
Use an A4 written format. The submission will be in the form of an electronic Word file submitted to Turnitin.
Documents will be formatted as follows:
1.5 line spacing and 12 point Times font;
no indentation,
paragraphs separated by two returns;illustrations within body of text; and
minimal use of headings and subheadings
Marking Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
Contract Analysis (time) 10%
view longer description 10 to >8.4 pts
High Distinction (HD) (comprehensive exploration of main issues with outstanding level of independent thinking and critical analysis)
Exceptional level of contract analysis.
8.4 to >7.4 pts
Distinction (D) (good exploration of main issues with high level of independent thinking and critical analysis)
Highly competent level of contract analysis.
7.4 to >6.4 pts
Credit (C) (all the main issues are addressed but limited evidence of independent thinking and analysis)
Competent level of contract analysis
6.4 to >4.9 pts
Pass (P) (majority of the main issues addressed but inadequate evidence of independent thinking and analysis)
Some evidence of contract analysis.
4.9 to >0 pts
Fail (F) (failure to adequately address the main issues and lack of understanding of the basic principles)
Limited evidence of contract analysis / 10 pts
Contract Analysis (cost) 10%
view longer description 10 to >8.4 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Exceptional level of contract analysis.
8.4 to >7.4 pts
Distinction (D)
Highly competent level of contract analysis.
7.4 to >6.4 pts
Credit (C)
Competent level of contract analysis
6.4 to >4.9 pts
Pass (P)
Some evidence of contract analysis.
4.9 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
Limited evidence of contract analysis / 10 pts
Contract Analysis (quality) 10%
view longer description 10 to >8.4 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Exceptional level of contract analysis.
8.4 to >7.4 pts
Distinction (D)
Highly competent level of contract analysis.
7.4 to >6.4 pts
Credit (C)
Competent level of contract analysis
6.4 to >4.9 pts
Pass (P)
Some evidence of contract analysis.
4.9 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
Limited evidence of contract analysis / 10 pts
Contract Analysis risk) 10%
view longer description 10 to >8.4 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Exceptional level of contract analysis.
8.4 to >7.4 pts
Distinction (D)
Highly competent level of contract analysis.
7.4 to >6.4 pts
Credit (C)
Competent level of contract analysis
6.4 to >4.9 pts
Pass (P)
Some evidence of contract analysis.
4.9 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
Limited evidence of contract analysis / 10 pts
Total points: 0
