JCT: Statutory Undertakers - SBC/XQ 2016

JCT Contracts General
1

Works have been undertaken under the JCT SBC/XQ 2016 with contractors design portion.

Part of the works involved the removal of a pole supporting both an electrical supply and telephone line.

The Employers Requirements stated that the contractor was responsible for the ordering and management of these works to remove the pole.

There were issues with the Electrical Statutory Undertaker and to assist, the client paid the SU direct to help expedite the works which had stalled with the contractor.

The cost of the item (a provisional sum) was adjusted by variation but the responsibility to manage it was not removed.

The contractor is now claiming that as the Client paid the SU direct, they took on board the responsibility for them and is using that argument in an EOT claim for under-performance by the SU.

The cost attributed to the management was never taken out of the contract in fact the contractor has been paid at the time it was completed.

Does the contractor have a point in that everything to do with that SU became the responsibility of the Client i.e. a third party contractor?

2

It depends on the wording of any instructions surrounding this, If the obligation to management of the works remains in the Employer’s Requirements, then it remains part of the Contractor’s obligations irrespective of whether somewhere, in the adjusted contract sum, there is an associate amount of money for it.

It is not unusual for the Employer to pay for something which remains the Contractor’s responsibility: free issue materials would be a typical example.