Page 118 - Civil Engineering Project Management, Fourth Edition

103
The resident engineer’s duties
aborted. But probably the most persuasive information likely to lead the
contractor to withdraw an incompetent agent, is for the engineer to provide the
contractor with the estimated value of the work done to date, compared with
the contractor’s probable expenditure. If the comparison shows an unaccept-
able loss to the contractor, the RE may be gratified to see how quickly a con-
tractor can act to remove an incompetent agent. But even if the RE’s estimate
does not show a clear loss, the estimate will at least cause the contractor to
examine what his agent is doing.
A difficult problem arises for the engineer if too many disputes seem to arise
between his RE and the agent. The engineer has power to require the contractor
to withdraw his agent under the ICE conditions (Clause 15), but he will be
reluctant to use this power unless he has incontrovertible evidence the agent is
solely at fault. If he suspects there is a clash of personalities on site, this can put
both the contractor and engineer in a difficulty. There is danger that they may
agree the problem can be resolved only by removing the agent or the RE. But
the decision to remove either is then one of expediency and not necessarily
justice, and it can damage the reputation of both the RE and agent.
To avoid such a situation arising, the RE must appreciate how his own con-
duct can affect the agent’s reaction. One of the most certain ways of losing the
agent’s co-operation is to be ‘continually reading the Specification at him’ as
if strict compliance with it applies to every situation however irrelevant. The
agent will think that unreasonable – which it is. He will also regard lack of
appreciation of his difficulties as unreasonable. When the agent faces diffi-
culties and is in need of help, it is up to the RE to relax conditions that are not
essential and to permit other ways round to the end result desired. An agent
will never resent a call from the RE for especial care with some operation, or for
strict compliance with the specification in matters of importance, such as for
a top-class finish for those parts of the job which will remain permanently in
view; but in return he will expect there will be occasions where the strict letter
of the specification is unnecessary and will not be demanded by the RE if
compliance presents real difficulty.
The contractor who continuously submits claims for extra payment, and will
not withdraw them despite many being obviously invalid, presents a problem.
The subject of claims themselves and how to deal with them is dealt with in
detail in Chapter 17. The initial problem is how the RE is to deal with such a
contractor. In the first instance, however many claims are submitted, it is essen-
tial the RE gives an immediate answer in writing to every such claim, register-
ing any reasons for his non-acceptance of the claim. He must make his answers
factual and courteous, and not let his letters show signs of irritation or com-
plaint. The reason is that, if the dispute should go to arbitration, all corres-
pondence relating to the claim must be put before the arbitrator. Thus if the RE’s
letters follow strict fact and are courteously worded, the more will his views
impress the arbitrator.
The chief defence against a disputatious contractor who submits many
claims is for the RE to maintain extensive records concerning every claim. The
site diary, the weekly reports, the daily reports of the inspectors, copies of notes