Certifying an IPC with Missing Fire Dampers
You are the architect appointed as contract administrator for a Rs 480 million school project under a standard lump-sum contract with 5% retention. The contractor submits Interim Payment Certificate No. 9 for Rs 62 million. Your site inspector's report records that fire-rated dampers are missing at 14 locations in the kitchen exhaust duct, although the ductwork has been painted and ceiling tiles installed. The contractor says the dampers are 'on order' and asks for the full amount. The client's finance director wants the certificate signed by Friday because the bank will release the next loan tranche on presentation of your certificate; he says, 'Certify now and deduct later - the contractor is good for it.' The same contractor's affiliated development company has invited you to design a commercial tower and asks for a fee proposal next week. The contractor has threatened a delay claim if payment is delayed.
1. How should you deal with IPC No. 9? Set out the certification and notification steps, including any amount you would withhold.
Read the worked answer
I would certify only work that has been executed and is conforming. The missing fire dampers are a life-safety nonconformance, and the installed ceilings obstruct access, so the affected ductwork and ceiling works are not complete. I would measure the value of the 14 dampers, their access openings and the ceiling reinstatement, withhold that value plus a reasonable sum for rectification, and certify the balance of IPC No. 9. In parallel I would issue a written nonconformance notice to the contractor with a deadline and a request for the damper delivery documents and a programme. I would tell the finance director in writing that I cannot certify nonconforming work for the bank's benefit; that is not a payment timing issue. If the client instructs me in writing to certify anyway, I would refuse and record the instruction. The threatened delay claim does not change the duty to certify accurately.
2. What should you do about the separate fee invitation, and why?
Read the worked answer
I would disclose the invitation immediately and decline it while I remain contract administrator on the school project. The inviting company is affiliated with the contractor whose work I am certifying, so accepting would create at least an apparent conflict of interest: my judgement on IPC No. 9 and on any delay claim could be seen as influenced by a prospective fee. Even with the client's written consent, the conflict would be difficult to manage because the same contractor is threatening a claim. I would put the disclosure and my decision on file, and I would not discuss the school project with the affiliated company. If the client wants me to take the tower commission, the clean route is to resign the contract administration role first and have the client appoint a replacement administrator in writing.