Case Study : Ron Engineering And Construction

Casturn hired a consulting company that possibly didn’t have the best interest of Casturn as its core motivation. The consulting company was paid on POTENTIAL cost savings and identification instead of a results oriented contract. Due to this structure, it became about quantity of parts that can be included in the bid instead of identifying the top say twenty percent of parts that, if managed well, could have yielded both companies a lucrative cost savings in the resourcing effort. In addition, the consulting company exited the process after the initial stages giving no one accountability to carry the resourcing effort to fruition.

AC1.2: Explain the roles and interests of those who should be involved in a tender process

Tiller Construction Corporation entered into two contracts with Nadler, the CEO of Glenmar, where Tiller would do “the work” for Nadler at Westridge for $637,000 and the other for Tiller to do “the work” for Nadler at Cranberry for $688,800. Nadler agreed to be personally liable to Tiller for the payment of both contracts. When the job was done, Nadler refused to pay the remaining balance of $229,799.46 for the Cranberry project and a remaining balance of $264,273.85 for the Westridge project. So Tiller sued Nadler for the amount owed, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Robert Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was employed as the general contractor to build a Kinney Shoe Store. Chuckrow employed Ralph Gough to perform the carpentry work on the store. The contract with Gough stipulated that he was to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, and other items necessary to complete the carpentry work. Gough’s employees erected 38 trusses at the job site. The next day, 32 of the trusses fell off the building. The reason for the trusses having fallen was unexplained, and evidence showed that it was not due to Chuckrow’s fault or a deficiency in the building plans. Chuckrow told Gough that he would pay him to reerect the trusses and continue work. When the job was complete, Chuckrow paid Gough the original contract price but refused to pay him for the additional cost of reerecting the trusses. Gough sued Chuckrow for this expense. Can Gough recover?

Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Cross-Defendants had no intention of completing the reconstruction improvements within four months because, among other thing, the first document, the Work Authorization, was signed on August 21, and the permit was not submitted until December 7, 2015.

In Winnipeg Condominium versus Bird Construction, the tort law focused on negligence. As Justice La Forest indicated, the construction of the building resulted in a defect which presented a potential for physical damage and a possible danger to the public. While there was no mention of any involvement of an engineer as a defendant in the case, if the actions of an engineer would have been in question, then that engineer could also have been named as a defendant. However, the negligence tort was being directed primarily at the general contractor in this case.

(2) Other defendant: Other defendants might be Leanne and also the contractor that is responsible for the renovation.

However, whether it is difficult or impossible to evaluate the cost of a service or item, contractors will usually agree to a cost-reimbursement contract, in which the stakeholders assume some level of risk for the final costs. (government)

In the scenario given, we need to establish whether a formality of a contract has been formed between Bruce and Matilda’s home in regards to Bruce’s request for the landscaping services for his premises. We can identify that there are three main legal issues that arise and these are; firstly the injury Bruce encounters when the work has finished. The negligent work done to the property that causes damage and Bruce loses time and profit because of this, creating a second issue. Finally, the breach of contract in regards to the failure to complete the work as agreed. The main concern in this case is that Matilda’s Home have created five exclusion clauses within their contract to exclude or limit their liability for breach of

a) Realty cannot rescind the contract because the majority of the contract has been performed and other remedies of the situation are available to Realty’s use in order to assist in getting the problems resolved. In this situation the contracting company has performed under substantial performance, which means, the performance performed is almost complete, but not totally finished. This is because the building was able to have tenants in the office building with only minor issues, such as, plumbing and insulation of the building.

• Canceling, terminating, or suspending the contract, or any portion thereof, for failure of the contractor or

(c) The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of

By (provision 8, sub-clause 8.1), inconsistencies might happen as a result of the over scaled measurements, if the contractor sees the vagueness in the reports supplied. Contractor must give composed notification to the owner. Where owner becomes aware of the issue, the director coordinates the contractor as to the interpretation and development to be taken after. On the off chance that consistence with any such course under this sub-clause causes the contractor to acquire pretty much cost than generally would have been brought about had the heading might not been given, the distinction must be evaluated

The PM has the responsibility to the customer and the company to ensure deliverables are met with the highest standard. The work performed by Curley and Moe, although falls within the acceptable building standards, does not meet the expectation of the company in terms of quality. The Elite Team offers a higher quality finished product and can meet the deliverables within the specified timeframe. From a financial perspective, the team opted to change subcontractors based on Curley and Moe’s inability to meet HappiHouse’s quality standards. In doing so, the baseboard and finish-work activity are able to be completed on time and to expected quality values. The standard crew performed eight hours of work of poor quality which had a sunk-in labor cost of $720. The elite crew took three hours to fix the quality issues of the standard crew’s finished product at a cost of $420 then took over the remaining 13 days of the project at an additional labor cost of $5,620 for the baseboard work. After that task is complete the project manager has the option to use the standard crew at no additional cost for labor on the finish work which has a $5,620 labor cost and a $10,960 material cost which totals $16,000 or utilize the elite crew at $7,840 for labor with the same material cost for a total of $18,800.

Even with prior planning uncertainties will happen. In this case, the contractor decided to outsource the concreted for the paid. The problem is that the concrete was not with codes and had to be removed and repoured. This delay caused budget overruns. This goes back to the quality not being measured in the earned value management (EVM) system. The 30 day project turned into 60 days and was ultimately over budget but the difference was paid by the contractor. Even