I encountered something recently
Thread Content
I encountered an incident recently: In November 2008, the factory issued a tender for the renovation of the existing combustion system (switching from coal to natural gas, using a split-type system with proportional combustion). A particular company was chosen to carry out this work; the decision was based on the fact that this company had previously renovated similar systems for our company’s competitors, boasting considerable experience in such tasks, and its bid was not too high. In January 2009, the renovation of the combustion system was completed and required inspection. (Since this renovation was part of a larger project, everything included in that larger project had to go through the supervision company.) At that time, the supervision company stated that this company did not have the necessary qualifications for installation; it merely sold natural gas burners. Several remedial measures were proposed: 1. Change the original renovation contract to a contract for the purchase of burners ； (It’s easy to imagine how difficult it is to renegotiate contracts with large companies.) 2. The construction company partners with a firm that has the necessary installation qualifications, signs an additional subcontracting agreement, and pays 5%–8% as management fees to that partner company ； (The construction company believes that he is simply selling burners and providing corresponding after-sales service, so no installation qualifications are required; the main issue is their refusal to pay for the necessary services.) 3. The inspection was carried out in this manner directly, and the supervision company issued a memorandum stating that no installation qualifications were available, which was then destroyed by the supervision company after one year. (The supervisor passed the inspection and shirked responsibility as well). Gentlemen, let’s discuss how to handle this matter This post was last edited by laiqi on 2009-3-4 15:46]
Based on my limited experience in construction, the analysis of the above plan is as follows: 1. After the contract is revised, the manufacturer will only be able to sell products, and not carry out modifications or installations. 2. Not advisable. 3. The supervisor is irresponsible. The best approach (in my opinion): Sign a construction contract with a company that has the necessary qualifications for such work, and continue to purchase products from that manufacturer; in that case, it’s necessary to revise the purchase contract ； The manufacturer guides the construction unit in carrying out the modification and installation. Last edited by Confucianist on 2009-2-16 19:49]
It’s great advice. I also noticed that this renovation is part of a larger project; we can focus on that aspect from time to time. Since this larger project still needs further renovations, we can look for manufacturers with the necessary oil-related qualifications. And this part is handled through after-sales service. (I have no experience in this area; please don’t laugh at me.)
Renewing the contract is inevitable; it’s better to switch to a maintenance service contract. Products that are sold can generally be repaired, and avoiding installation can save a lot of trouble. If the contract is not renewed, according to the supervision company’s advice, it must issue an acceptance report following standard procedures, and that isn’t impossible; however, you will have to bear some of the risks.
It’s very likely that the contract will need to be signed again in the end; it was just a lesson learned – it’s troublesome when the construction company doesn’t have the necessary qualifications! ~