Review the three sample specifications highlighted in this chapter, and explain why project managers often fail to prevent ambiguity, which would help avoid delay and prevent disputes and costly litigation. How would you have changed the language in these three specifications to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty?

A few selected provisions and the problems and risks these specifications presented at the Big Dig are highlighted in the three examples that follow.

Transcribed Image Text:

EXAMPLE 1: SPECIFICATION Section 4.04 Differing Site Conditions: If during the progress of the Work, the Contractor discovers that the actual subsurface conditions encountered at the site differ substantially or materially from those shown on the Plans or indicated in the Contract Documents, ... the contractor... may request an Equitable Adjustment in the Contract Price... Problem: Disputes arising from this specification were quite common due to the differing interpretations of "substantially or materially" and whether the designer should be liable for not identifying the subsurface conditions in the drawing or the owner should be liable because the contractor was not at fault. Solution: (1) the designer and the owner should work together to resolve any differences; (2) the meaning of "differ substantially or mate- rially" should be defined to a greater extent in the specification; (3) the method of calculating the equitable adjustment should be included in the contract documents; and (4) the risks and exposures should be iden- tified and included in the contractor's baseline, or through a construction contingency.