Expert advice in minutes not days. Register it's free and ask your first question now.
ReachBack is a free community help desk for construction professionals run by Built Intelligence. A library of high-quality questions from real users with answers delivered and curated by industry experts.

Do you want to update your skills in NEC3, NEC4, JCT, Procurement, CDM or Project management?

Sign up for one of our free online courses.

4,760 questions

5,056 answers


Register its Free

Download here

NEC3: Design liability on Contractor proposed equipment/built elements

+1 vote
We are currently in the process of letting a main contract that includes MEP elements that are defined (effectively) by a performance specification. Naturally, the consultant has used a provisional equipment selection (that they will not share) to ensure design coordination and viability.

The Contractor is concerned that the lack of a named product, and the requirement to propose a product for acceptance constitutes "design", as they have made a choice. Meaning that if there were legal issues at a later date (for whatever reason) the design liability would sit with them.

The Consultants understanding is that once a piece of equipment has been accepted all responsibility for design sits with the consultant, with any issues regarding installation/workmanship sitting with the Contractor.

Which is correct?
asked Oct 10 in Risk and Insurance by Jasoncrozi (130 points)  

1 Answer

+1 vote
The Contractor is correct.
answered Oct 10 by Jon Broome (49,370 points)