I am currently studying for CE, and I am reviewing my answers to the Ballast ARE 5.0 Practice Exam. While I'm pretty confident in the contracts (I just passed both PjM and PcM last week), I'm having issues with Ballast's interpretation of select language.
One example, the practice problem from the Ballast 5.0 Practice Exam Guide:
A contractor submits a list of proposed subcontractors to the owner and architect for construction of a small office building. The architect reviews it and notes that the proposed plumbing subcontractor is a company with a history of poor workmanship; one of the architect's clients on a previous project spent thousands of dollars to correct the plumbers errors. the architect expresses his concerns to the owner, who agrees that he prefers not to have this subcontractor as a part of the project. If the owner-contractor agreement references AIA Documents A-201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, what can the owner and architect do?
Now I have 11 years experience in the industry, most doing QA/QC for project and Construction Administration makes up roughly 70% of my job duties - I've seen my fair share of crappy contractors and subs. I've also failed enough exams to know to look for the ARE 'buzzwords', so immediately this question pings me to A-201 Section 5.2.3: "If the proposed but rejected Subcontractor was reasonably capable of performing the work, the Contract Sum and Contract Time shall be increased/decreased by the difference [...change order...]. However, no increase in the Contract Sum or Contract Time shall be allowed for such change unless the Contractor has acted promptly and responsively in submitting names as required."
According to the Ballast Solutions, the answer is:
(D) "Require the general contractor to use a different plumbing subcontractor, with the understanding that the contract sum or contract time may be adjusted to reflect the new subcontractor's proposed price and/or schedule."
The answer goes on to justify that "Assuming the original proposed subcontractor was "reasonably capable" of performing the work, the contractor will be entitled to an adjustment of the contract sum or time to reflect the new subcontractor's price or schedule..."
So, now I have two questions:
- There is an absence of language for the opposite scenario: what if the subcontractor is not reasonably capable of doing the work? Is the contractor then deprived of Contract Sum and Time adjustments because he chose someone [the Architect/Owner finds] incapable? Or does the capability of the subcontractor virtually not matter, and it's on the Contractor to act "promptly and responsively" in finding a new sub that entitles them to adjustments?
- According to the Ballast answer, they find this subcontractor "reasonably capable" of doing the work, despite describing the sub as has "a history of poor workmanship" and "thousands of dollars spent to correct their errors." That doesn't ring reasonably capable to me....
Am I missing something? Or is this an error? I have been finding several in the Ballast big book.
Please sign in to leave a comment.