contract administration
TRANSCRIPT
1 / 15
Attention: NVIDIA Architects, SARM Group & Riot Constructor
Dear team,
Meeting No: 2014-10
Client: The University of Newcastle
Project: New teaching & training facility
Thank you for the opportunity to preside over the recent progress meeting held Thursday
October 23th.
This report will provide you with the numbers of solution to particular disputes occurring at
present between the architect NVIDIA Architects, the main contractor SARM Group and sub-
contractor Riot Constructor. Surbana Construction Consultant have analysed and advised upon
appropriate contractual resolutions according to the terms of contracts AS4000 – 1997 (Main
contract) and AS4901 – 1998 (Subcontract).
To clearly present the report, this document has been categorised into four sections;
1. Project diagnose
2. NVIDIA Architects Resolutions
3. SARM Group Resolutions
4. Riot Constructor Resolutions.
2 / 15
CONTENT
A. Project Diagnose……………………………………………………………………….…..3
A.1 Contract………………………………………………………………………………..…3
A.2 Contractual Roles………………………………………………………………………3
A.3 Contract Clauses…………………………………………………………………….…4
B. Architectural Resolutions – NVIDIA Architects……………………………………….5
C. Main Contractor Resolution – SARM Group……………………………………….….9
D. Sub-Contractor Resolution – Riot Constructor…………………………………..…13
E. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………15
F. References…………………………………………………………………………….……15
3 / 15
A. Project Diagnose
A.1 Contract
The standard contract format of using AS4000 - 1997 is carrying out new teaching and training
facilities. AS4000 – 1997 is designed for the general clause and substance use of construction
development, thus this contract it a suitable choice of our project development. Supervision
requirements for AS4000 required the Principal appointed a Superintendent to manage the
construction work onsite, they can be bonded with AS4901-1998 subcontract as well as the
Main-Contractor appoint the Sub-Contractor.
A.2 Contractual Roles
Principle
NVIDIA Architects: the person responsible for specifying project requirements and making
payment to the head contractor. Principle is bound by AS 4000 – 1997.
Main Contactor
SARM Group: the person bound to perform and complete the work-under-contract (WUC).
Contractor is bound by AS 4000 – 1997
Superintendent
Architects representative: the person appointed in writing by the NVDIA Architects to be the
Superintendent and notified as such in writing to SARM Group. Superintendent is bound by
AS 4901 – 1998
Sub-constructor
Appointed by SARM Group, at the approval of NVDIA Architects, to carry out the selected
sub-contract work. Sub-contractor Riot Constructor is represented by AS4901 – 1998.
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Title: Progress Meeting
Minutes Meeting date: 23/10/2014 Meeting time: 9:30am
Meeting location: Academic Office Block Callaghan NSW 2308
4 / 15
Meeting called by: Paul Juwono (Principal)
Type of Meeting: Progress meeting
Chairman: Ada Wong
Note taker: Cade Yeager
Time keeper John Watson
Attendees: Architect, Architect’s Representative, Contractor, Sub-contractor,
Principal.
A.3 Contract Clauses
In relation to current issues of concern expressed by NVIDIA Architects, SARM Group and Riot
Constructor, clauses of significance that will form the basis for all recommendations made
herein include:
AS4000 – 1997
Clause 11 – Legislative Requirements
Clause 26 – Setting out the Works
Clause 29 – Quality
Clause 30 Examination and testing
Clause 34 Time and progress
AS4901 – 1998
Clause 26 – Setting out the subcontract works
Clause 29 – Quality
Clause 34 – Time and progress
Minutes
Present Paul Juwono (Principal) Peter Biggs (Contractor)
Michael Mason (Architect) Sam Wiki (Sub-contractor)
Adney Daniel (Architect’s
representative)
Apologies N/A N/A
5 / 15
B. Architectural Resolutions – NVIDIA Architects
Architect issues
Garden wall (2nd phase) incorrect position
Description & current action: The Architect Representative Adney Daniel has noticed a thirty
metre stretch of garden wall that is leaning at least 50mm out of plumb. He issued a rectify
instruction for this work 4 days ago, but no action has been undertaken till now.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.4 “Acceptance of defective work”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.5 “Timing”
4. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 39.2 “Contractor’s default”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 29.3
The work done of garden wall does not comply with the Contract, the Superintendent
(Adney Daniel) has written a details instruction to the Main Contractor 4 days ago. If the
subject work has not been rectified or any rectify action been undertaken within 8 days (4
days left) The Superintendent may direct appoint others Main Contractor (SARM Group) to
rectify this subject work.
The Superintendent shall recertify the cost incurred as moneys due from the Contractor to
the Principal (NVIDIA Architects).
2. Clause 29.4
Instead of a direction pursuant to clause 29.3, the Superintendent may direct the Main-
Contractor that the Principal elects to accept the subject work, whereupon there shall be a
deemed variation.
3. Clause 29.5
The director may according to this clause to make a change of make a new work direction at
any time, before the expiration of the defects liability period end.
6 / 15
4. Clause 39.2
The Principal may handover or post a written notice to show cause since the Main
Contractor commits a breach, due to the non-compliance with a direction of the
Superintendent pursuant to clause 29.3.
Garden wall (1st phase) incorrect position
The similar section (regard to the 30 m stretch of garden wall) of brick wall on an area of wall
was been built in wrong position.
Description & current action: The Architect Representative Adney Daniel has noticed a similar
section of brickwork on an area of wall are in wrong position, and that was built 8 months ago.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.4 “Acceptance of defective work”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.5 “Timing”
4. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 39.2 “Contractor’s default”
Recommendation:
Refer to Garden Wall (2nd Phase) recommendation.
Waiting for second phase programme
The Architect Representative is still waiting for a copy of the programme for the 2nd phase of the
project.
Description & current action: Adney Daniel is waiting for the 2nd phase programme, that is
consistently been promised by the Main-contractor at the 2nd phase first beginning. But no
programme has been handover to him.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 32 “Programming”
Recommendation:
7 / 15
The Superintendent (Adney Daniel) may direct the Main Contractor to give the construction
program within the time and in the form directed. The Main Contractor shall not, without
reasonable cause, depart from a construction program.
If any such indication to comply with this clause, the Main-Contractor may face more or less
cost spending, the difference shall be evaluated and assessed by Superintendent, and added or
deducted from the contract sum.
Wrong sized plasterboard
The Superintendent (Adney Daniel) witnessed the plastering sub-contractor using the wrong
sized plasterboard (10mm instead of 15mm)
Description & current action: Adney Daniel made a written request 10 days ago for the Main-
contractor to ascertain how many units have been plastered using 10mm size board, but no
further action be undertaken by Main-contractor & Sub-contractor.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.1 “Test”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.6 “Completion and results”
4. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.7 “Cost”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 29.3
The plastering work done does not comply with the Contract. The Superintendent (Adney
Daniel) has written a details notification to the Main Contractor 10 days ago. But no action has
been undertaken, since the Superintendent has rights either to do the following action:
Remove the plasterboard from site
Demolish the plastering work
Replace or correct the work
Inform Main Contractor that the Principal may have that cost rectified by others.
8 / 15
2. Clause 30.1
At any time before the expiry of the last defects liability period, the Superintendent may direct
the plasterboard be tested. The Main Contractor shall give such assistance and samples and
make accessible such parts of plasterboard as may be directed by the Superintendent.
3. Clause 30.6
On the completion of tests, The Main Contractor shall make good plasterboard so that it fully
complies with the Contract. Results of tests shall be promptly made available by each party.
4. Clause 30.7
Cost in testing the sample plasterboard shall be borne by the Principal.
Setting-out errors
A number of setting-out errors have been made, it is result of a group of piles being built in
wrong place, and a brick wall being built in an incorrect location.
Description & current action: The Architect Representative requires the Main Contractor to put
this work right.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 26.2 “Errors in setting out”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 26.2
The Main Contractor shall rectify every error in the position, level and dimensions to minimise
the following damage. After that promptly notifying the Superintendent and unless the
Superintendent within 3 days directs otherwise.
2. Clause 29.3
Refer to the 2nd phase incorrect position of garden wall.
9 / 15
C. Main Contractor Resolution – SARM Group
Non-compliance staircase design
The Main Contractor wishes to make a point about a detail on the staircase drawings.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor pointed out to Adney Daniel 2 weeks ago (on
telephone) that if construction went ahead as per drawing the staircase would have a pitch that
was unacceptable under the requirements of the building code. The building code authorities
now want the staircase altered so it complies.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS4000 – 1997 Clause 11.1 “Compliance”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 11.1
The Main-Contractor shall meet all legal requirements should be found in legislation regulations,
any non-compliances in the contract shall promptly give written notice to the Superintendent.
Alteration of decorative planted area design
The Main Contractor has pointed out that on a previous occasion they altered the Architect’s
design to enable a decorative planted area to be constructed more easily.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor wishes to know if they will be paid for this
work and given additional time.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 29.4 “Acceptance of defective work”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 29.3
10 / 15
If the Principal insist the wok done must be rebuilt to the original design, the Main Contractor
shall wait for the Superintendent’s written notice, then reconstruct the work within 8 days. They
can’t be paid and the certify money shall due from the Main-Contractor.
2. Clause 29.4
If the Superintendent may direct the Contractor that the Principal elects to accept the decorative
planted area, whereupon there shall be a deemed varation.
Construction details around glass conservatory
The Main Contractor is awaiting drawings showing the constructional details around a glass
conservatory that were requested in writing three weeks ago.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor is still waiting for the detail drawings and the
construction of this item is now becoming critical.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.3 “Claiming”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.5 “Extension of time”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.9 “Delay damages”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 34.3
The Main Contractor is entitled to claim extension of time for carrying out any subsequent works
which will be undertaken after the completion of glass conservatory, because the Main
Contractor gives a writing notice and will be delayed in reaching practical completion by a
qualifying causes of delay.
2. Clause 34.5
The Superintendent shall give to the contractor and the Principal a written direction evidencing
the EOT so assessed within 28 days (after receiving Main Contractor’s claim)
11 / 15
3. Clause 34.9
For these subsequent task’s EOTs after glass conservatory, the Contractor shall give the
Superintendent a claim for delay damages pursuant to sub clause 41.1, damages certified by
the Superintendent under sub clause 41.3 shall be due and payable to the Contractor.
Re-rendered gable wall
The Main Contractor is reluctant to knock holes in the plasterboard to determine the number of
units that have been plastered using the incorrect sized boards. (See Architect’s resolution in
section B). They have just re-rendered a gable wall after knocking off some decorative render to
confirm it was the specified thickness (15mm).
Description & current action: The thickness proved adequate, then the Main Contractor wish to
know if they will be paid and given additional time for this work.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.1 “Test”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.6 “Completion and results”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 30.7 “Cost”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 30.1
The Superintendent is entitled at any time before the expiry of the last defects liability period, to
direct the plasterboard be tested. The Main Contractor shall give such assistance and samples
and make accessible such part of plasterboard directed by Superintendent.
2. Clause 30.6
On completion of the tests, the Main Contractor shall make correct sized plasterboard so that it
fully complies with the Contract. Results of tests shall be promptly made available by each party
to the other and to the Superintendent.
3. Clause 30.7
Cost in connection with testing shall be borne by the Principal.
12 / 15
Setting out error/incorrect position brick wall due to not issued drawing
The Main-contractor has set out and built the brick wall in an incorrect position (engineer using
dimension from first floor drawing to set out ground floor), this is the result of the Architect had
not issued the ground floor drawing.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor wishes to know if they will be paid for
correcting this, and given additional time to do so.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 26.1 “Setting out”
2. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.3 “Claiming”
3. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.5 “Extension of time”
4. AS 4000 – 1997 Clause 34.9 “Delay damages”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 26.1
The entrusting party (Principal) shall ensure that the Superintendent give the Main-
Contractor data, measurement marks and information necessary to setting out work,
surveying markers shall be specified in the contract. Then the Contractor shall specify the
project in accordance with the provisions of the contract.
2. Clause 34.3, 34.5 & 34.9
Refer to glass conservatory resolution.
Unsuitable materials used to fill the driveways
The Architect Representative has been insisting that the fill used under the driveways is not
specified.
Description & current action: This work was carried out as a favour by the Sub-contractor (Riot
Constructor) of the sub-let work “at no charge”
Pertinent clause:
13 / 15
AS 4000 – 1997
1. AS 4000-1998 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 29.3
The Superintendent shall as soon as practicable give the Main Contractor a written details, the
Main Contractor shall rectify the works. Further information please refer to section D “Sub
Contractor resolution”.
D. Sub-Contractor Resolution – Riot Constructor
Installed a group of piles in according with wrong drawing
The Engineer used by the Sub-Contractor (Riot Constructor) has set out a group of piles in the
wrong location from the Architects drawing.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor is holding the Sub-Contractor responsible and
insists on charging them for having the work put right.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4901 – 1998
1. AS 4901 – 1998 Clause 26.1 “Setting out”
2. AS 4901 – 1998 Clause 26.2 “Errors in setting out”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 26.1
The Main-contractor shall give the Sub-contractor the data, survey marks and any other
information to set out pile in accordance with Sub-contract. So the Riot Constructor is
entitled to claim addition cost and extension of time from Main Contractor.
2. Clause 26.2
The setting out piles error was caused by incorrect data, survey marks or information given
by the Main Contractor, the cost incurred by the Subcontractor in rectifying the error shall be
assessed by the Main Contractor and added to the subcontract sum.
14 / 15
Unspecified light switches
The Main Contractor has noticed that the Sub-contractor is using a cheaper grade of light
switches than was specified.
Description & current action: The Main Contractor is insists that the light switches must be
changed.
Pertinent clause:
AS 4901 – 1998
1. AS 4901 – 1998 Clause 29.3 “Defective work”
Recommendation:
1. Clause 29.3
The Main Contractor becomes aware of work done by the Subcontractor which does not comply
with the Subcontract, the Main Contractor shall give a written notice to subcontractor to rectify
the light switches. As the Sub-contractor, if the work has not been rectified, they may face to the
flowing risks:
Failure has not been made good within 5 days after the Subcontractor receives
written notice from the Main Contractor that they intends to have the subject work
rectified by others.
Direct by Main Contractor to remove the switches from the site, demolish the existing
work done and replace the work done.
Unqualified materials used in backfilling
This work can’t be assessed by the subcontract due to it is not a work under contract.
15 / 15
E. Conclusion
We hope our suggestion is satisfied by each party involved in the progressive meeting, if any
party get doubt or question, please feel free to contact with us.
F. References
AS 4000 – 1997, S. A. (2009). “AS 4000 – 1997 General Conditions of Contract”. Australian
Standard, 70
AS 4901 – 1998, S. A. (2009). “AS 4901 – 1998 General Conditions of Contract”. Australian
Standard, 75