Civil Engineering Project Management (4th Edition)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
220 <strong>Civil</strong> <strong>Engineering</strong> <strong>Project</strong> <strong>Management</strong><br />
with the extra work involved, including perhaps some unspecified sum for<br />
overcoming any consequent delay alleged to have been caused. The resident<br />
engineer should not accept such a quotation, but should refer it to the engineer.<br />
The ICE conditions recognize that a quotation may be desirable and allow the<br />
engineer to request this for ordered variations. If the engineer finds the contractor’s<br />
quotation unacceptable he can assess the variation at bill rates or<br />
similar (see Section 17.4). It is thus clear that the base line for any agreement is<br />
to be the existing bill rates. The position is different under design and construct<br />
contracts and the ECC whose provisions are discussed at the end of this section.<br />
It may seem that acceptance of a contractor’s quotation has the advantage<br />
that it avoids complicated problems of checking costs and assessing any delay.<br />
But it can prove highly advantageous to the contractor and disadvantageous to<br />
the employer. The contractor need not justify the amount of his quotation and,<br />
as he makes the quotation before he undertakes the necessary work, the engineer<br />
can only make an estimate of what the contractor’s costs might be to check<br />
the quotation. Similarly, with no work done, there is no factual evidence as to<br />
what delay, if any, the extra work would cause. Sometimes work on two or more<br />
variations can take place at the same time, or otherwise be so closely connected<br />
(using the same equipment, for example) that it becomes difficult, or even<br />
impossible, for the engineer to judge whether the contractor’s quotations contain<br />
elements of double charging of costs or double claiming for delay.<br />
It should be noted that both the ICE design and construct conditions of contract<br />
and the ECC (see Section 4.2(d) and (f)) require the ‘quotation approach’<br />
when variations are ordered. But those contracts are not necessarily based on a<br />
priced bill of quantities but often on lump sums, in which case the quotation<br />
method is appropriate (see Section 17.3). However, both the design and construct<br />
and the ECC are administered by the employer’s representative or his project<br />
manager and not by an independent engineer, hence the contractor’s power to<br />
quote in advance for extra work can be seen as strengthening his position. It is<br />
true that under those contracts the employer’s representative or his project<br />
manager can reject the contractor’s quotation, substituting his own, but this<br />
must inevitably raise a dispute.<br />
17.13 Time limits and interest payable on<br />
late payments<br />
The ICE conditions require the contractor to notify his intention to make a<br />
claim ‘as soon as may be reasonable’ but in any case within 28 days of meeting the<br />
unforeseeable conditions or cause of delay, or receiving notice of a rate set under<br />
a variation order. If the contractor is late in his notification of a claim, he may<br />
lose a right to that part of it, which the engineer cannot in consequence investigate<br />
properly (Clause 53(5)). When costs are ongoing, the engineer can require<br />
the contractor to submit further accounts of his claim at reasonable intervals.<br />
There is no specific time stated when the engineer must come to a decision
Change language