Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council Case Study

Pages: 5 (1360 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 4  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Law  ·  Written: April 28, 2019

the runoff water entering through the defectively placed refill at the top of the liner, the government claims, was defective as had been established during inspections, which as per the contract, was the government’s duty.

The government argues that it had identified that the concrete at the top of the liner had not been done as per the provided guidelines. The government further alleges that it was not its duty to bring this to the attention of the contractor, because such inspections were done for the benefit of the government. This is a clear indication that the government has not been acting in good faith, and still is not. This is evident because the government still argues that “deficient placing of the refill was pointed out to GCC on a number of occasions during and after placement” (Bureau of Reclamation, 2).

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77
It is clear from the contract that, the government, through the contracting officer, had the power to remove from the work any employee the officer deemed to be incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable (GCC, I-24). Despite having such enormous power to hire and fire employees of the contractor, there is no evidence that the contracting officer, fired any single employee, despite that fact that there was obvious careless in that, as the government argues, there was none adherence to the design drawings of the liner. This only goes to show that, the government and the contracting officer were either negligent, incompetent, or are simply making untrue claims/arguments.

Case Study on Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council Assignment

As a matter of fact, at clause 3.3.5 of the contract, it clearly outlines the procedure, the type of materials to be used, how the materials are to be placed for the refill at the top of the concrete canal lining (GCC, 3-16). To this effect, it should be rather a question of whether GCC really adhered to these set guidelines when carrying out the refill. It is evident that the contractor, adhered to the guidelines and design drawings provided by the WEC, and yet cracks continued to occur. It is clearly evident therefore that the fault was with the design drawings provided by the Government and WEC. It is also interesting to note that, as per the correspondence between GCC and WEC, on the 01/90, it is noted that there was also a crack on a lateral canal that had been built by another contractor. The only similarity was that the designs used for this particular building were also provided by WEC, and that, in both instances, the cracks were similar.


From the argument above, it is clear that; (1) there were cracks at the top liner of the concrete and GCC went out of their way to carry out refill work. (2) it was the duty of the government to provide guidelines for the project and for the contractor to religiously follow them. As per record, they all did. (3) it was the duty of the government to carry out inspection work and ensure compliance with the project guidelines, and out of good faith, bring and deficiencies to the contractor’s attention. The contracting agency failed. (4) the contracting officer had the power to hire and fire contractor employees, none was fired. (5) in another lateral canal built by a different contractor, but with the design drawing provided by the same contracting officer, there was a similar crack. This is proof enough that concrete crack on the liner was as a result of design error by the contracting officer, and thus qualifies as excusable claims, and GCC claims request for equitable adjustment should be granted in their entirety.

Works cited
  1. Bureau of Reclamation. CONCRETE CRACKING CLAIM RESPONSE. 1990.
  2. Gilbert Construction Company Inc. (GCC). CONCRETE CRACKING CLAIM. 1990.
  3. Hild, Franklin J. Case Studies in Construction Disputes. Diss. University… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (5 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Industrial Relations Term Paper

Risk Allocated in Oil Research Paper

Foreign Investment in Saudi Arabia Term Paper

Education for Diversity Thesis

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council" Case Study in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council.  (2019, April 28).  Retrieved September 19, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council."  28 April 2019.  Web.  19 September 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Construction Contract Claim: Arbitration Council."  April 28, 2019.  Accessed September 19, 2020.