Basis for reduced payments to contractor due to unapproved materials

[sgoris]

Has anyone encountered a situation where an unapproved material was used in construction and a reduced payment was the result? The contractor was notified that the material was unapproved after it was placed (concrete in this case). A review of the concrete tickets revealed the admixture though the product code was approved. The material meets code, but contains an admixture not approved through the submittal process. The admixture in this case was a chloride containing admixture placed in reinforced concrete. The contractor was put on notice that the material was not approved and was required to correct the situation. The response of the contractor was to show the material met code. The contractor had the chlorides tested and the chloride content is within ACI standards. The owner now has a material they did not approve of. Is there a basis for reduced payment, i.e. not allowing the cost of the concrete, in this case?

 

[Imagineer]

First question is, "Did the owner suffer any harm?"

Imagineer

 

[jheidt2543]

What is the "situation" the Contractor is to correct? The mear fact that an "unapproved" material was used is not in and of itself reason to reject it. Imagineer's question is right to the point, Did the Owner suffer any harm? Also, will the "fix" be worse than the condition you are trying to remedy? It is also possible that the Contractor ADDED to the the value of the Owner's project (if such is the case should he be paid extra?). What was his reason for using the additive, increased strength, prevent freezing, speed construction? The problem may not be so clear cut.