@Ron I have a fairly comprehensive set of drawing notes that I edit for each project. The *.txt file is in excess of 400KB so the notes are ‘huge’.
I don’t like using specs… I’ve encountered too many projects that reference specs only to find out the specs haven’t survived over the decades…
Just came across a new note on someone else’s project that bears some consideration and was promptly discarded. It read as follows:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY WORK NOT EXPLICITLY SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS BUT WHICH MAY BE REASONABLY IMPLIED FOR THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THE WORK.
I’ve done a bit of Contract Administration; the above note takes the cake.
@dik; Im not a native English speaking person. What do you mean with
I’ve done a bit of Contract Administration; the above note takes the cake.
Do you mean the note is useful, and any good, or the opposite?
Im currently working on an internal template for pressure vessel work, where we will engineer vessels, but subcontract the fabrication. Such a note doesnt really seem to fit our scope, I think, but with a little tweaking, I can use it. Just done want to be too pedantic.
That expression means that the referenced note was ridiculous. Whoever wrote that note was trying to give themselves an excuse to avoid consequences of vague/unclear work.
Don’t… it’s a terrible note… and any self-respecting judge would toss it in an instant. It could also set the mood of the entire contract. It was posted on a mechanical drawing, but, with contracts, the drawings are usually complimentary… so it could be applicable to the entire set. I posted it because it was exceptional, and, I haven’t seen anyth’ing like it in decades.
They’re a work in progress… and continually updated… Still have some holes that are updated with the project that needs them. A culmination of 30 years of problems…
@Ron@MSQUARED48 My project notes are as good or better than specifications and stay with the drawing set… We had a major project in Winnipeg at the airport about 10 years back… It was the first that the Winnipeg office used comprehensive drawing notes and I got a little heat for this. The construction manager forgot to include the specs as part of the bid package… and the drawing notes ‘saved the day’. Even for a formatted document, 400K is a large document… as a *.txt file it’s even ‘more big’.
“all work and items reasonably inferred from the Contract Documents as necessary to properly perform the other obligations of the Contractor under the Contract.”
This is from my state government’s standard contract for major works (>$1 million, but could be used for >$1 billion road/tunnel projects as an example). You can be sure that at least two major law firms have given this the OK. It may be worth your reconsideration / may not be as ridiculous as you think. Eg temporary works or enabling works.
It could be… but, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it… There’s an excellent opportunity for ambiguity with this and with contract case law with ambiguity, they generally rule against the originator of the contract… there are a bunch of other issues.
Essentially every contract provision has the potential of being litigated, whether or not it was previously vetted by other attorneys. All it takes is a disagreement as to its contextual interpretation, its specific application to the project issue or just cantankerous lawyers.
Remember the old joke about a small town that had one attorney. He almost starved till another attorney moved to the town.
Agree, I just wanted to point out that this note is not necessarily some laughable creation by a naïve engineer. For all we know, it’s included in this engineer’s notes from having lost a case in the past due to its omission. Maybe lawyers sit around laughing (to the bank) at engineers who don’t include notes such as this, while we laugh at engineers who do…
