Ethical Discussion

Ethical Discussion

Ethical practices in contracts are fundamental for preserving the reputations and avoiding losses as a result of court cases. The paper is an in-depth analysis of unethical practices between launching station owner and General Contractor to determine the party who was at fault.

Ethical issues involved

Firstly, the owner and Architect-Engineer excluded the general contractor from the process of designing and choosing the location of the launching facility, which was unethical. Lack of adherence to regulations and the laws governing the contract practices was also unethical. For instance, the owner of the launching station failed to adhere to the rules of terminating contracts.

Why are they issues and which party is at fault

The exclusion of the General Contractor from the designing process of the launching station was unethical since the company was to assess the practicability of the design. Lack of adherence to contract regulation, which states terms for terminating contracts, was an issue since it had a tendency for causing loss to the contractor. The owner was at fault for creating all of the unethical cases during the contract period.

How the unethical practices would have been avoided

The launching station owner and the Architect-Engineer should have included the General Contractor in the designing process to curb design errors and lack of practicability of some elements of the design. Furthermore, the owner should have investigated the main reasons for the underperformance and whether allocating more time the project completion was appropriate instead of terminating the contract prematurely.

Eichleay formula and ethical application

The Eichleay formula is vital for calculating the Home Office Overhead by a contracting company. The Home Office Overhead estimated using the Eichleay formula is crucial for compensating a contracting company during delays caused by circumstances that cannot be avoided. For instance, the owner should have appropriately used the method to pay the General Contractor for the delays caused by the Air force activities on the launching station. Contrarily, the owner rushed to terminate the contractor with the General Contractor, which was unethical.

Do any party have an ethical claim based on Spearin doctrine

The General Contractor had moral claims based on the Spearin doctrine since its management followed the design specifications, as stated by the owner and Architect-Engineer. Hence the General Contractor was not liable for the design faults that were apparent after the construction of the launching station. On the other hand, the owner had no ethical claim based on Spearin doctrine and could not sue the General Contractor for the delays and faults on the final project.

General Contractor had the right to claim ethically according to Spearin doctrine since they constructed the launching station according to the specification of the owner, ensuring that the station was unique. Else ways, the owner had no ethical claim since they wanted a unique launching station that does not exist anywhere in the world. Furthermore, they excluded the contractor from the designing process of the project. Therefore, it was the owner’s fault for designing a project which was non-practical without the contractor’s consent.

The party who acted unethically and why they were at fault

The owner responded unethically by delaying the contractor’s progress by allowing the frequent Air force interruptions without compensating the contractor appropriately. Furthermore, the owner changed the design element during the development of the contract and did increase the project’s time. The owner was at fault since they infringed on Spearin doctrine and also did not compensate the contractor appropriately for time wasted.

Conclusion

The owner was to blame for the unethical practices in addition to prematurely terminating the contract contrary to the regulation governing contracting parties.