Menu
Home>Levelset Community>Legal Help>Sprinkler system dispute between contractor and owner

Sprinkler system dispute between contractor and owner

PennsylvaniaConstruction Contract

I own a building and hired a GC to manage remodel. I sent them plans, we agreed on price, and signed the contract. Contractor is responsible for all construction until certificate of occupancy is granted by city. Now the contractor has come to me and said there is no sprinkler plan for the building, they did not budget for one, and I am responsible for the cost of sprinkler installation. My plans do not include a separate 'sprinkler plan' however, the plans do clearly state that a 'sprinkler system is required' and that a supplemental sprinkler plan will be provided at a later date. It is my position that they should have seen the line in the plans stating that sprinklers are required and budgeted for them. They also should have known without even seeing the plans that sprinklers would be required as they are on almost all construction now in Philadelphia. I believe I should be responsible for paying for the design and submission of a 'sprinkler plan' and they should be responsible for the cost of installation of sprinkler system. It seems to me like they are playing dumb and acting like they had no idea sprinklers were required in attempt to push the cost to me. Who is correct? Any insight is greatly appreciated!

2 replies

Jan 11, 2022

You are asking a question that comes up time and time again in construction disputes.
Agreements between the owner and contractor usually incorporate the project's design plans and specs. The architects and engineers who design the project usually try to use broad inclusive language to protect the owner's interests and make the contractor responsible for known costs to minimize the contractor's change order requests on the project.  

However, the coverage of such language is reasonably limited by the knowledge of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The contractor may have seen the general note, but still hve reasonably concluded that the lack of sprinkler system in the design plans menat that the note did not apply to this project. Stated differently, how could the contractor have reasonably priced the installation of a sprinkler system which was not shown on the plans that he bid? A sprinkler system is not a flat cost that the bidding contractor can simply carry as a line item. To protect his own interest, the contractor probably should have excluded the undesigned sprinkler from his bid, but why would the contractor know to exclude sprinkler work which was not even shown on the plans?  

Unless there was additional written correspondence regarding the sprinklers and your expectations that they would be included in the project, I think the contractor is entitled to a raesonable adjustment for the additional work. Maybe you can find a middle ground by requesting that the contractor provide you with the actual proposal from the sprinkler contractor and agreeing to pay for the additional sprinklers with the contractor agreeing not to put a markup on the sprinkler contractor's proposal.

Regards,

Colin Schmitt

Schmitt Law LLC

cschmittlaw@gmail.com

609.400.1006    

0 people found this helpful
Helpful
Jan 26, 2022
While I agree with Colin in large measure, I think it may be possible to hold the contractor responsible for installing the system in a legal sense. It is a very facts sensitive analysis that would center on the documents and facts Colin mentioned. This is an instance where the legal and practical elements may diverge though. Even if you can make them responsible legally, you can't get the court to force them to install it. If you don't strike a deal as Colin suggests, you should consider other parts of your contract that will need to be adhered to in order to try to make them legally responsible after you hire someone else to do it.
0 people found this helpful
Helpful