Taking projects to completion: site acceptance testing, commissioning

Introduction

This paper highlights the ways in which to handle conflict between contractors and clients. In this sample, the builder was tasked with the construction of a structure. However, during the commissioning procedure for the building, a review report by a building inspector and inspector revealed that there were slight flaws in the HVAC system. So, since the broker representing my customer, I am tasked with dealing with both the customer and the contractor so as to come up with an amicable solution with respect to the issue in hand.

Commissioning Procedure

The commissioning process was done by a professional building inspector and engineer as stipulated by the contract between the civil engineer and the representatives of the customer. The builder was supposed to deliver the construction as completely operational. The identical business was paid a lump sum which could cater for all costs. This will include the hiring of a different electrical company to deal with all electrical installations. The HVAC system was a part of the electric system. However, the major contractor needed to be paid an additional amount to fix the HVAC system but the client refused to do so stating that those weren’t the terms of agreement as stipulated by their own contract. Therefore, I acted as the mediator in this case. “The key benefit of mediation is hazard and cost management. Since the parties arrive at the answer, the disputants maintain control of the whole procedure.”
The client was advised of the HVAC defects and the job of the chief contractor. The client declined to add any more money towards the project. The customer claimed that the relevant clause with respect to the battle mentioned was clearly stipulated in the contract. The client further claimed that the builder had approved all the terms of the contract without any question. This was the case as all the other bidders of this contractor. The customer therefore felt that the contractor was going against the terms of arrangement. It was presumed that the bidding would look after any contingency compared to extra costs that the builder would have to incur.
Communicating With The Contractor
The contractor was advised of this position that the client had taken with respect to the flaws in the HVAC system. The contractor accepted that they had neglected to raise this matter during the bid clarification meetings. This is because these implications had not been detected. However, they claimed that the defect wasn’t due to them and that they had completed their civil work flawlessly. They maintained that the extra costs should not be levied on them but on the electric company that had installed on the HVAC system.
On further scrutiny of the contract arrangement, it had been discovered that the builder had a poor case to establish. This is because the customer made an agreement with the civil firm rather than the electric firm. Hence any dispute was to be handled between the electric company and the civil firm. Considering that the commissioning was underway, the customer wasn’t to endure the consequences of this conflict. An amicable solution was devised as well as the HVAC system was to be mended and the conflict difficulties be sorted out afterwards. This meant the last payment of the builder was not changed and the issuance of the last certificate was done in time.
The closing stage of jobs entails a “formal acceptance of the project and the end thereof.” Documenting the lessons learnt and document archiving are some of the administrative activities involved.
The closing phase entails:
Contract close: settle and complete each contract. Each contract that is applicable to the specified project should be closed.
Job close: all the actions in each of the procedure groups ought to be finalized for the formality of shutting the given project.
An example related to this case is given by means of a case analysis by Whitticks (2005) titled ‘Immediate and Consequential Costs’. In the final phase, the following statement resolves the dispute between the builder and the customer “Such punishment for delay will be recoverable from Contractor by any means available to Company under the conditions of the Contract or in law.”

Conclusion

Before accepting provisions of any contact, comprehensive scrutiny should be performed and any ambiguous announcement is brought forward for clarification. This will look after any possible scenario that may happen during the project implementation. “Honesty and candor between the operator and the builder is necessary for progressive construction management.” (Levin, 1998: 7).