Question: project summary a multiprime contract for the construction of a...
A multiprime contract for the construction of a new high school for the New State Building Commission
Concrete Services Corp. (CSP)
CSP did not have much experience working on public projects, but it did have vast experience as a concrete subcontractor.
Steel Contractor Inc. (SCI)
Steel contractor responsible for supplying the steel columns and erecting the steel frame of the building
Corporal Construction and Management Services, Inc. (CCMS)
Management service responsible for creating and managing the schedule for the project, including:
- Reviewing and coordinating work schedules to eliminate any potential conflicts
- Visiting the job site regularly
- Communicating with the different trades throughout the duration of the project
- Conducting job site meetings to resolve any conflicts that do arise
CCMS is the project’s construction manager under the standard CM Agreement and General Conditions issued by the New State Building Commission. They are a relatively new company and did not have much experience in a construction management role.
Assigned by CCMS as the lead project manager on the construction project
CCMS needed to quickly fill the lead construction management role on the project or face termination, so they hired Paul Manager. Paul was recommended to CCMS by the owner of SCI.
Throughout the project, CSP complained to Paul that SCI was hindering its work progress because SCI was experiencing delays in erecting the steel and often did not get the steel columns delivered in time. On a regular basis, the CSP crew would show up for work and would be forced to wait around because SCI had not completed its erection of the steel due to delays in the delivery of SCI’s materials.
When CSP brought the situation to Paul Manager’s attention, Paul told CSP not to worry about it and that he was confident that SCI would come through and complete its scope of work in a timely manner. Paul Manager never conducted a job site meeting to address the situation and he never documented any of CSP’s concerns. On one occasion, CSP’s concrete pump was crushed by one of SCI’s cranes because Paul had arranged to have both crews on the job at the same time working in the same area.
The construction project’s completion date was delayed several months, in part due to an unusually rainy season, but also due in part to schedule delays experienced by several of the contractors on the project.
CSP filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that CCMS’s mismanagement of its oversight responsibilities caused CSP to experience a number of delays and to work inefficiently, resulting in extra costs. As evidence of CCMS’s mismanagement of the entire project, CSP alleged that:
- CCMS abandoned the critical path schedule, forcing contractors to do work out of sequence
- Access to the job site often prevented its crew from working at all
- The process for submitting and approving extra work orders took too long, and they often remained unresolved
1. What management technique would you recommend to Paul to mitigate the risk of future disputes?
2. What documentation could either side provide to support their claim?