Welcome to Planning Planet, checkout the Guild of Project Controls Knowledge CAR

Abortive Works

5 replies [Last post]
Lo Gary
User offline. Last seen 21 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Feb 2010
Posts: 41
Groups: None

It is very common that discrepancies are found between drawings.However, if discrepancies are not found and the contractor built something according to either one of the drawing.After that  the contractor found the discrepancies and were told that the works should follow the other drawings. Could the contractor claim for abortive works . It is usually the consultant would say the contractor is obliged to notify him the dicrepancies found and ask for instruction.  


Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 959
Groups: None

Gary is correct when he says it depends on the wording of the contract and circumstances that occurred.

For example, in D&B or EPC contracts I have seen more use in recent years  of a time period at the beginning of the contract within which the Contractor must inform the Employer, (Engineer), of any and all discrepancies in the drawings and if the Contractor fails to do so, the risk of abortive work etc then lies with the Contractor.

In a more traditional Employer design, contractor build only scenario then the costs would usually be recoverable.

The answer is in the contract, (hopefully).

Adrian Nicholas
User offline. Last seen 6 days 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 9

In Most Cases, the Contractor in many cases should be able to claim for corective or change of scope works based on inital AFC drawings issued by the employer but normally there is an independent verify appointed in the project to make sure this does not happen.

Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 16 hours 8 min ago. Offline

Hi Lo

If the building is fit for its intended purpose then the employer has not suffered any damage.

It would be unreasonable therefore to insist on full restoration.

If however because of the discrepancy the employer cannot make beneficial use of his building then restoration would be reasonable.

As to who is responsible that is a problem for the courts but to my mind the discrapncy was in the design and that is where the blame trail should start.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Gary Whitehead
User offline. Last seen 1 day 20 hours ago. Offline

Obviously this will depend on the precise wording of the contract, and the precise events which occured, but in general:


1) A contractor can be expected to notify client of any discrepancies which he discovers and wait for instruction

2) A contractor cannot be expected to check every single drawing issued for discrepancies. It is the client / design consultant's responsibility to provide the correct drawings.

So yes, a contractor could probably claim for abortive works.

Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 24 weeks 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1172

i supposed there are always QA/QC inspectors and specifications that govern over drawings, so if the contractor is in doubt, there will always be time for inquiries and decisions