Opinion ID: 1709421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether obtaining assistance from greenwood during on-site testing of the control system was a breach of contract by triconex.

Text: ¶ 27. Triconex argues that the contract in question provided that [a]t times the Owner may provide personnel to assist the Contractor's field service personnel during on-site testing. Triconex further argues that Greenwood did not object to providing Shaw, and that this type of assistance from Shaw is customary in the industry. ¶ 28. Greenwood argues that the trial judge held that Triconex breached the contract not by requesting assistance from Shaw, but by installing a defective control system. Greenwood further argues that the contract clearly stated that Triconex had sole responsibility for the testing. Contract 103, Article 6, stated: B. LABOR, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT: 2. Unless otherwise specified in the General Requirements, Contractor shall furnish and assume full responsibility for all materials, equipment, labor, transportation, construction equipment and machinery, tools, appliances, fuel, telephone, temporary facilities and all other facilities and incidentals necessary for the furnishing, performance, testing, start-up and completion of the Work. (Emphasis added). Additionally, the contract states: B. On-Site Testing: . . . . 3. Provide all labor and technical direction to test and start-up all combustion turbine-generator systems. . . . . 7. Service personnel shall report with any test equipment or tools required to place the control equipment and systems into operation. Greenwood also argues that for Triconex to rely upon the provision providing that the  Owner may provide personnel to assist  (emphasis added), Triconex must have asked Marion Flanagan, the project manager, for permission, because he was the only person who had authority as the owner. ¶ 29. In the end, it is irrelevant whether Triconex asked Greenwood for assistance. According to the plain language of the contract, Triconex had the burden of providing all labor, tools, and technical assistance for the testing. In other words, Triconex had sole responsibility for the testing. Thus, we find that this issue is without merit.