GESTION DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS PARTE 15

Understanding Project Modifications and Their Justifications

Reasons for Additional Project Modifications

• Additional modifications to projects are primarily justified by two reasons: technical necessities and regulatory requirements.

• If the technical documentation is created by someone unfamiliar with local conditions, such as a consultant lacking knowledge of the area, it can lead to inappropriate designs that necessitate changes.

Examples of Inappropriate Design Choices

• The speaker references an example from Huancayo where ceramic tiles were used in public spaces despite unsuitable weather conditions, highlighting poor design choices based on lack of local knowledge.

• Technical evidence must support claims that existing designs (like roofing materials) are inadequate for specific environmental conditions to justify project modifications.

Regulatory Compliance and Safety Standards

• Changes may also arise from safety regulations; for instance, using tempered glass instead of regular glass in windows is mandated due to safety concerns during potential accidents or vandalism.

• The necessity for compliance with national electrical codes was emphasized when discussing the use of halogenated cables over outdated types, which could pose serious risks during fires.

Procedures for Approving Modifications

• Approval processes for project modifications require careful analysis according to established norms. The new regulations (Norma 147) outline how additional costs should be calculated based on increased inputs.

• There are different types of deductive changes (simple vs. binding), each requiring specific procedures and justifications within project management frameworks.

Handling Surplus and Deficits in Project Execution

• When actual work performed deviates from planned quantities (e.g., excavation), resolutions must be issued to approve any surplus or deficits encountered during execution.

Deductives and Reductions in Construction Contracts

Understanding Deductives

• The concept of deductives is introduced, distinguishing between different types: simple deductive, mixed deductive, and binding deductive. Binding deductives are defined by law and regulations.

• It is clarified that while some deductives do not require resolution, binding deductives do.

Deductive vs. Reduction

• A question arises about the equivalence of a deductive to a reduction in construction work. The speaker explains that although they may seem similar, they are distinct concepts.

• Deductives for works have limits (15% to 30%), whereas there is theoretically no cap on the amount for a binding deductive; it could be as high as 100%.

Implications of High Deductives

• An example illustrates that a project could end up with only 5% of its documentation being useful if a 95% deduction occurs.

• The treatment of reductions versus deductives is emphasized as fundamentally different due to these limits.

Supervision Costs in Construction

• Historical norms limited inspector costs to 5% of the reference value of the work, while supervision costs were capped at 10%. This was often questioned regarding its effectiveness.

• There was criticism over these limitations since effective control should prioritize adequate funding for oversight personnel rather than restricting their numbers.

Recent Changes in Regulations

• New regulations aim to strengthen control measures by removing previous caps on supervision budgets, allowing entities more flexibility in hiring necessary staff for oversight roles.