Contractors -- Cost to Bring up To Code
A question very similar to the one I posted a few days ago:
Serving as my own GC on a garage conversion. I hired a contractor to do the framing. Inspector came out and found a few minor problems with the contractor's work.
* New foundation, built across old garage opening, should have been "toothed" into existing foundation, but now needs to be anchor bolted in.
* He should have added bracing at the ends of floor joices
* He should have put 3 vents into the crawlspace, not 2.
Who normally pays to have this work (re-work) done? Should I be expected to pay the contractor more to bring his work up to code?
Just want to know what is normal practice.
The GC is responsible normally unless he has a firm contract price from the sub. Since you are now the Gc, it is your baby.
If you did not have a firm price you are responsible for the time, especially if you ordered the materials. - That makes him a labor contractor and not a framing contractor, which would have more responsibility. Same thing if you just turned him loose without paying attention from concrete through bracing and venting.
GCs are expected to have some knowledge of what should be done and what is required.
1st day of contractors school ...1st hour.." If something goes wrong...and somebody needs to be blamed it is the General Contractor."
1st day of law school..1st hour is devoted to never trusting your accountant...2nd hour " Contractors are for suing, never... ever.... pay a contractor with out some form of litigation."
Have you approached this grouchy o'l subcontractor with the deduct on his invoice you expect because of the cost saving approaches he suggested?
Have you told him about the corrections that must now be made as required by the inspector. ( Was this inspection required because you pulled a permit he advised you not to pull?) Have you told this grouchy o'l contractor you expect him to eat the additional work and materials that will now be required?
Who was the professional that designed and provided stamped plans for this project? Were the plans submitted for approval during the permit process? Did the GC have an opportunity to review and suggest changes or modifications to plans and specifications for current code compliance prior to the application for the permit? If the answer is no.. to the above question, then a good lawyer, that is not trying to create billable hours, might advise... It's a little trick to bring suit against yourself, but I'm sure after a couple of weeks of research I can find some legal precedent, and we might be able to go after your HO insurance or umbrella policy...and they have deep pockets.
I hope this :jester:reasoning helps.
Sorry, but I don't agree with the reasoning it's the poster's fault. If he hired a licensed and insured contractor, that contractor would need to do the job to the Building Code. If he didn't, it would be his responsbility to fix everything that was out of compliance. He would not get paid until everything he did was up to Code.
It all goes back to the contract and documentation between the GC and the sub-contractor.
Just because a sub is licensed and insured that is not an excuse for making an error that did not agree with the code. If the code is the guide for performance, maybe a good sub-contractor should get a bonus for doing something to a higher standard.
If you hold yourself out to be a GC, you better be prepared to make agreements that are complete and comply with the minimum standards (code) he is required to meet. If not, the GC eats it since the "title" GC means nothing other than an ego-booster for a DIYer that thinks he can avoid responsibility.
Trying to hold back payment after not having a clearly defined performance is just a desk-jockey cop out. On the other side, if the sub did not meet the contract requirements, he must be required to perform. - If the GC did not have a contract, the sub should file a lein immediately. A real GC would then know what to do.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 AM.|