] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Paul McEntee" <pmcentee(--nospam--at)home.com>]

> >I  wonder if the real reason that we adopt the attitude of  compensating
> >for contractors non-compliance is the recognition that in many instances
> >there is no support from Clients to pay for inspections and to reject the
> >work.


How often do you find that the contractor makes an error, yet the owner,
architect and contractor call the engineer the bad guy for not excepting
work that's non-compliant?  And when you do spend engineering time (=money)
to come up with an economical fix or perform additional analysis to verify
that the as-built condition meets the intent of your design (or at least
"works"), how often is anyone willing to pay you for it?  Budgets for
construction administration account for time to be spent on a few mistakes,
but with certain contractors and architects, it can get plain ridiculous.