Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
consequential scopes of work between the contractor and its sub‑
contractor. Scope gaps often create disputes.
Uncoordinated contract design documentation, or a failure by the
repair, but disputes can arise when opinions differ. Such issues
are usually resolved during construction, and most defective
construction disputes arise after project completion when a
constructed element fails. This can be time‑consuming and
expensive to deal with when the respective design and con‑
struction teams have been demobilised, especially if there are
allegations of negligence or breach of contract that necessitate
insurance indemnification. Thus, dispute avoidance and early
resolution should be a priority for all parties.
■
contractor to properly coordinate its subcontractors, can lead to
disputes that revolve around consequential delays and third party
coordination impacts. An emphasis on thorough coordination and
active use of electronic clash detection software within the BIM
environment can mitigate these impacts.
Pre‑construction meetings can be used to great effect to focus
attention on these issues, but when disputes inevitably flourish
a flexible and positive approach to dispute resolution is needed:
16.9 Conclusions
An understanding of structural engineering movement and tol‑
erances is fundamental when undertaking all projects, but on
occasion there are projects that truly encapsulate these issues
and require unique solutions. The new British Antarctic Survey
(BAS) Halley Research Station in Antarctica is designed to
withstand extreme conditions; high winds, deep snow drifts,
extreme minimum temperatures of -50ºC and below, sunless
three‑month winters, and a site location on a floating ice shelf
that moves nearer to the sea every year (see
Figure 16.8
).
The response to these challenges has resulted in a building
design that fully responds to its environment. Complete off‑site
pre‑fabrication of the modules was not feasible as the indi‑
vidual components would be unable to maintain the required
fit when transported to Antarctica. Each structural steel module
frame had to be shipped to site and offloaded onto the sea ice
as a complete unit with legs and skis attached so that it could
be towed into position. Once in place pre‑fabricated floor and
cladding panels were then fitted making the task of dealing
with aluminium, steel and timber fit tolerances much easier
since each material had already acclimatised. In addition, the
design used standardised and interchangeable components that
made it quicker and simpler to build each module, allowing
the BAS to keep a reduced spare parts inventory. The project
is quite exceptional, and a fantastic example of movement and
tolerances issues taking centre‑stage in the design and con‑
struction process.
A request for information (RFI) process is normally set up to
■
handle interpretational problems related to the contractual docu‑
mentation, plans and specifications. If the parties to the process
work in the right spirit it can be used to flexibly resolve disputes
and avoid conflict. However, the RFI process can be misused by
contractors to create additional and unnecessary time and cost
claims, to mask inadequate contract planning or to corner the pro‑
ject team by delaying the issue of RFIs until they are time‑critical.
This can be exacerbated by client and design professional failures
to acknowledge faults and anomalies, and overlaps between pro‑
ject design and construction means/methods that have not been
clearly defined in the project scope of works.
Unnecessarily strict interpretations or changes to accommodate
■
movement and tolerances issues should always be assessed against
their time and cost impact, especially if they could have a cumula‑
tive impact on other activities. In such cases, relaxation of criteria
or alternative means of achieving them should be considered.
It is normally the contractor's responsibility to ascertain any
■
apparent or discoverable problems through reasonable investi‑
gation and preparation of the works. If a contractor encounters
conditions that are unusual, hidden or significantly different from
those indicated in the contract documents it is not unreasonable
for them to expect additional time or payment to assist in reso‑
lution of the issues.
During the course of construction defective or non‑compliant
work may be identified. It is standard practice to allow the
client and/or contractor to order its removal, replacement or
Figure 16.8
British Antarctic Survey Halley Research Station. Design by AECOM and Hugh Broughton Architects (Photo by Hugh Broughton
Architects)
