Abortive Works

i supposed there are always QA/QC inspectors and specifications that govern over drawings, so if the contractor is in doubt, there will always be time for inquiries and decisions

Obviously this will depend on the precise wording of the contract, and the precise events which occured, but in general:

1) A contractor can be expected to notify client of any discrepancies which he discovers and wait for instruction

2) A contractor cannot be expected to check every single drawing issued for discrepancies. It is the client / design consultant's responsibility to provide the correct drawings.

So yes, a contractor could probably claim for abortive works.

Hi Lo

If the building is fit for its intended purpose then the employer has not suffered any damage.

It would be unreasonable therefore to insist on full restoration.

If however because of the discrepancy the employer cannot make beneficial use of his building then restoration would be reasonable.

As to who is responsible that is a problem for the courts but to my mind the discrapncy was in the design and that is where the blame trail should start.

Best regards

Mike Testro

In Most Cases, the Contractor in many cases should be able to claim for corective or change of scope works based on inital AFC drawings issued by the employer but normally there is an independent verify appointed in the project to make sure this does not happen.

Gary is correct when he says it depends on the wording of the contract and circumstances that occurred.

For example, in D&B or EPC contracts I have seen more use in recent years  of a time period at the beginning of the contract within which the Contractor must inform the Employer, (Engineer), of any and all discrepancies in the drawings and if the Contractor fails to do so, the risk of abortive work etc then lies with the Contractor.

In a more traditional Employer design, contractor build only scenario then the costs would usually be recoverable.

The answer is in the contract, (hopefully).