please help me solve.

provide the following

* Write 250 words to defend GCs position

* write 250 words to defend Subcontractors position.

* write 100 words to conclude the case.

Ski Resort Heavy Timber Framing Subcontract GC entered into a subcontract with a framing subcontractor for construction of heavy timber post and beam framing of a base area ski lodge. Subcontract required that subcontractor provide performance and payment bonds. The GC alleged the subcontractor struggled to provide adequate manpower and supervision since the project started carly in the summer of 2008 and continuing into the fall. Additionally, there were quality issues that the GC attributed to lack of proper supervision on behalf of the subcontractor. The GC field managers met with subcontractor's field representatives late summer 2008 on multiple occasions expressing concern their work was falling behind schedule. The subcontractor responded that they had an adequate workforce on the project site and that the GC's schedule was too aggressive. Furthermore the subcontractor alleged that the completion date for the entire project was in the contract documents, but no specific schedule was provided in the subcontract for subject work. The subcontractor also responded that the alleged quality issues were more a function of over-zealous inspection on the part of the Owner representatives. After this meeting and for about the next two weeks the GC and subcontractor field managers were working closer together and things seemed better, but by the end of August the situation deteriorated again. In early October 2008 the GC starting withholding payments from subcontractor stating non-performance. The GC also met with subcontractor to develop a recovery plan to put the project back on schedule. While the subcontract still did not agree that their work was behind schedule they agreed to the plan to accelerate the work. By carly November 2008 the work was still behind schedule and the recovery plan was not being adhered to by the subcontractor. The GC agreed to release held payments if the revised schedule in the recovery plan was met. Because the subcontractor was not receiving full progress payments the subcontractor could not pay all its suppliers. The GC was worried that the over-all schedule was slipping and that project might not be fully dried in before Christmas 2008, an important milestone date. As a result the GC decided to supplement the subcontractor's crew with their own labor. The GC put the subcontractor on notice via email that they were not in compliance with the performance provisions of their subcontractor and that they would be back charged for any costs the GC experienced to correct the situation The project was shut down for two weeks over the Christmas break at the request of the Owner as to minimize disturbances to ski resort guests over the holiday. Work was to resume the second week of January 2009, but the subcontractor refused to return to the project site stating the GC had breached the subcontract by not making payments. The GC chose to put the subcontractor's surety on notice at this point in time requesting that the surety take immediate corrective steps to complete the remaining unfinished work and reimburse the GC for all costs to date relating to this problem Provide the following: 1) Write 250 words to defend GC's position, 2) Write 250 words to defend Subcontractor's position, and 3) Write 100 words to conclude the case. Ski Resort Heavy Timber Framing Subcontract GC entered into a subcontract with a framing subcontractor for construction of heavy timber post and beam framing of a base area ski lodge. Subcontract required that subcontractor provide performance and payment bonds. The GC alleged the subcontractor struggled to provide adequate manpower and supervision since the project started early in the summer of 2008 and continuing into the fall. Additionally, there were quality issues that the GC attributed to lack of proper supervision on behalf of the subcontractor. The GC field managers met with subcontractor's field representatives late summer 2008 on multiple occasions expressing concem their work was falling behind schedule. The subcontractor responded that they had an adequate workforce on the project site and that the GC's schedule was too aggressive. Furthermore the subcontractor alleged that the completion date for the entire project was in the contract documents, but no specific schedule was provided in the subcontract for subject work. The subcontractor also responded that the alleged quality issues were more a function of over-zealous inspection on the part of the Owner representatives. After this meeting and for about the next two weeks the GC and subcontractor field managers were working closer together and things seemed better, but by the end of August the situation deteriorated again. In early October 2008 the GC starting withholding payments from subcontractor stating non-performance. The GC also met with subcontractor to develop a recovery plan to put the project back on schedule. While the subcontract still did not agree that their work was behind schedule they agreed to the plan to accelerate the work. By early November 2008 the work was still behind schedule and the recovery plan was not being adhered to by the subcontractor. The GC agreed to release held payments if the revised schedule in the recovery plan was met. Because the subcontractor was not receiving full progress payments the subcontractor could not pay all its suppliers. The GC was worried that the over-all schedule was slipping and that project might not be fully dried in before Christmas 2008, an important milestone date. As a result the GC decided to supplement the subcontractor's crew with their own labor. The GC put the subcontractor on notice via email that they were not in compliance with the performance provisions of their subcontractor and that they would be back charged for any costs the GC experienced to correct the situation The project was shut down for two weeks over the Christmas break at the request of the Owner as to minimize disturbances to ski resort guests over the holiday. Work was to resume the second week of January 2009, but the subcontractor refused to return to the project site stating the GC had breached the subcontract by not making payments. The GC chose to put the subcontractor's surety on notice at this point in time requesting that the surety take immediate corrective steps to complete the remaining unfinished work and reimburse the GC for all costs to date relating to this