Project management during final execution & commissioning

Introduction

This paper highlights the ways in which to handle conflict between contractors and customers. Within this sample, the contractor has been tasked with the construction of a structure. However, during the commissioning process of the construction, a review report with a building inspector and inspector revealed that there were slight flaws in the HVAC system. Therefore, as the broker representing my customer, I am tasked with dealing with both the customer and the contractor in order to think of an amicable solution with respect to the issue in hand.

Commissioning Process

The builder was supposed to deliver the building as fully operational. The identical business was to be paid a lump sum that could appeal for all costs. This would involve the hiring of another electrical firm to handle all electrical installations. The HVAC system was part of the electric system. On the other hand, the major contractor wanted to be compensated an additional amount to fix the HVAC system but the customer refused to do this stating that those weren’t the provisions of agreement as stipulated by their own contract. Therefore, I acted as the mediator in this circumstance. “The key advantage of mediation is risk and cost management. Because the parties arrive at the solution, the disputants keep control of the whole procedure.” (Kelsey 2010: 1).

Communicating With The Client

The customer was advised of the HVAC flaws and the position of the chief contractor. The customer declined to add any more funds towards the project. The customer claimed that the appropriate clause with regards to the battle mentioned was clearly stipulated in the contract. The client further promised that the builder had accepted all of the details of the contract without any question. This was the case as all the other bidders of the contractor. The customer therefore felt that the contractor was going contrary to the terms of agreement. It was assumed that the bidding would take care of any contingency compared to additional costs that the builder would need to incur.

Communication With The Contractor

The contractor has been informed of this position that the client had taken with regards to the defects in the HVAC system. The builder confessed that they had failed to raise this issue during the bidding meetings. This is because such consequences hadn’t been noticed. But they claimed that the defect was not caused by them and that they’d done their civil work flawlessly. They maintained that the extra costs should not be imposed on these but on the electric company that had installed on the HVAC system.

Effect Of The Observed Defects

On further scrutiny of the contract arrangement, it was found out that the contractor had a weak case to prove. This is because the customer made an agreement with the civil company rather than the electric firm. Hence any dispute was to be handled between the electrical company and the civil firm. Considering that the commissioning was recovered, the customer was not to suffer the consequences of this battle. An amicable solution was devised as well as the HVAC system was to be repaired and the conflict difficulties be sorted out later. This meant that the last payment of the contractor was not changed and that the issuance of the final certificate was completed in time.
The closing stage of jobs entails a “formal acceptance of the job and the ending thereof.” (Harrison, 2004: 34). Assessing the lessons learnt and file archiving are a number of the administrative actions involved.
The closing phase involves:
Contract close: settle and complete each contract. Each contract that is applicable to the specified project ought to be closed.
Project close: all of the activities in each of the procedure groups should be finalized for the formality of closing the specified project.
An example relevant to this instance is given by means of a case study by Whitticks (2005) titled ‘Immediate and Consequential Costs’. In the last stage, the following statement resolves the dispute between the builder and the client “Such punishment for delay shall be recoverable from Contractor by any means available to Company under the terms of this Contract or at law.” (Whitticks, 2005: 230)

Conclusion

“Every party mentioned in a building contract is responsible to adhere to the terms agreed to in the contract” (Rothstein 2013: 1). Before accepting provisions of any contact, thorough scrutiny ought to be performed and any ambiguous statement is brought forward for clarification. This may look after any possible situation that may happen throughout the project implementation. “Honesty and candor between the owner and the builder is essential for progressive construction administration.”