Krolock
2010-12-21 08:35:02
- #1
Our general contractor (GU) was probably a bit offended because he was not allowed to bring his companies for the earthworks and house connection (15,000 euros more expensive) on board. This had consequences... Basically, the soil report states "backed-up seepage water," therefore sealing according to DIN 18195 Part 6. This should have been included in the GU's calculation since the report was already available at the time of the house offer. The soil expert recommended possibly a drainage system. However, the GU was of the opinion that sealing according to DIN 18195 Part 6 was sufficient and never let the drainage be offered through his companies. We awarded the contract externally, and the GU also gave our selected earthworks contractor a contract for excavation and backfilling.
We had some problems because the GU did not accept the excavation pit from the earthworks contractor. We had requested the earthworks contractor in writing to have the excavation pit accepted by the GU. But the earthworks contractor did not do this, and the GU simply started building the basement. Then I found clay in the excavation pit. Construction was stopped, and the soil expert had to give his OK. Now drainage is mandatory because there is clay and no soil replacement has taken place. Water accumulates in the foundation area.
As builders, we wanted to be on the safe side and additionally planned a drainage system at our own expense. The GU used this as an opportunity to unilaterally seal only according to DIN 18195 Part 4 (ground moisture) without consultation. Furthermore, he did not supervise the backfilling above the drainage. According to the construction service description: "Working spaces are backfilled with existing soil, provided it is suitable." Upon our written request whether the soil was suitable for backfilling at all, he refused to test the backfill material because he only pays the earthworks contractor for this service and we had selected him. :eek: How do you see this? Do we have a claim for sealing according to DIN 18195 Part 6? Can we demand proof from the GU that the soil (as required in the soil report) is free of silt? We cannot hold the earthworks contractor responsible since the order for backfilling and compaction came from the GU.
We had some problems because the GU did not accept the excavation pit from the earthworks contractor. We had requested the earthworks contractor in writing to have the excavation pit accepted by the GU. But the earthworks contractor did not do this, and the GU simply started building the basement. Then I found clay in the excavation pit. Construction was stopped, and the soil expert had to give his OK. Now drainage is mandatory because there is clay and no soil replacement has taken place. Water accumulates in the foundation area.
As builders, we wanted to be on the safe side and additionally planned a drainage system at our own expense. The GU used this as an opportunity to unilaterally seal only according to DIN 18195 Part 4 (ground moisture) without consultation. Furthermore, he did not supervise the backfilling above the drainage. According to the construction service description: "Working spaces are backfilled with existing soil, provided it is suitable." Upon our written request whether the soil was suitable for backfilling at all, he refused to test the backfill material because he only pays the earthworks contractor for this service and we had selected him. :eek: How do you see this? Do we have a claim for sealing according to DIN 18195 Part 6? Can we demand proof from the GU that the soil (as required in the soil report) is free of silt? We cannot hold the earthworks contractor responsible since the order for backfilling and compaction came from the GU.