Greetings, On a small construction project, whose scope of work was demolition, a piece of equipment was removed, which apparently shouldn't have been. We are a subcontractor on the project, and the GC stated that our organization is finanicially responsible for the cost of the piece of equipment. It could be argued that we weren't informed NOT to remove said item, but that is besides the point. When we requested payment, the GC stated that the project Owner would "let the cost of the controller (piece of equipment" go away," but instead wants a whole new system of equipment installed. The GC then said the cost for this whole new system of equipment, rather than just one piece of destroyed equipment, exceeds our small contract value. The GC then asked us to revise the original contract value because we will not need to return to finish the project until later this summer. Long story short, are we responsible for eating the cost of a whole new system? And also, it seems as if the GC is trying to get out of paying us anything (they've paid nothing to date), by then asking us to revise the original contract sum. I would appreciate any insight, and I apologize for the vagueness of my question; I've tried to use only generalities for the purposes of anonymity.
As a subcontractor, I would recommend that you tread cautiously with horse trading with the GC. It's best to keep the issues distinct until their separate liabilities and costs are determined.
With regard to the equipment which was not to be moved, has the GC identified where in the design documents the equipment was identifed as untouchable? Has the GC pointed to any contract provision under which you became responsible for the care of an obstructing item which was not in your scope? Did you acknowledge or admit that you should not have touched it? Hopefully not, but it's probably not the end of the world if you were trying to be polite and professional.
Given the generalities of your question, I do not understand how a whole new system would be a reasonable request. If equipment was moved because it was interfering with your ability to complete your scope, the alternative to you moving it would have been a change order request for dealing with the impediment. If it was accidentally destroyed due to a mutual misunderstanding, and depending on the cost of the new system, filing a claim with your insurance carrier might be the better option.
Please feel free to give me a call to talk about it in greater detail. Whether you speak to me or another Pennsylvania construction attorney, all communications would be confidential and privileged.
Colin Schmitt