Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I could be wrong, but isn't the general contractor responsible for the subcontractor's work in this situation? The city pre-approved Augescon (the Spanish subcontractor who did the steel work), but didn't force Graham to use them. That was Graham's decision. The city had a fixed-price contract with the general contractor, and all subcontracted work should fall within that. If Graham can recoup these increased costs from Augescon, that's up to them.
|
Exactly the way I see it. A lot of industries have pre-approved lists for certain brands or suppliers of equipment and it's up to the bidder to select which ones to use. The bidder, when turning into the awarded contractor, is responsible to ensure any equipment suppliers they chose provide equipment that is up to project specifications. I fail to see why the city should be at fault for a contractor selected sub-supplier's failure to meet project specs.
A pre-approved list doesn't guarantee a future ordered product is going to be correct, it means they have gone through screening and are known to be compentent on previous jobs. This doesn't allow a contractor that uses them to pass the buck to whoever made the list.