A Contractor was required to complete 20 condition surveys of residential properties, on a project. Due to restricted access they only completed 16 in total by the Completion Date. Under Cl.60.4 the 4 surveys they failed to completed due to restricted access (access was an employers risk) is a compensation event. Can the Contractor legitimately claim the unit cost to carry out the 16 surveys was higher than the rate stated in the original BoQ (they priced based on the assumption of achieving all 20). Say the surveys were priced at ÂŁ200 each originally, for the CE quotation could the Contractor claim the rate is essentially the difference as they were on site for the contract duration and would have completed the works if possible. The CE quote would be for the extra over from the original rate in the BoQ (ÂŁ800) if they could demonstrate this. Assuming no change to the Works Information, the above would meet all three bullet points covered in Cl.60.4
I hope i’m reading your question right, if not please let me know. Your question appears to me in two parts, is the Contractor’s CE acceptable, and how should they assess this ? Here are my thoughts if so…
If i were your Contractor i’m not sure that i would have raised the CE under CL 60.4 as from what i’m reading, you still require your Contractor to carry out all 20 condition surveys, but access has prevented them. If this is the case, I would be raising a CEN under 60.1 (2) or possibly (3) dependent on what your programme shows. From there I would be assessing the impact this has on me as a Contractor and assessing the impact to my Defined Cost using the SSoCC.
If the above is correct, and you wish for the Contractor to carry out the remaining 4 surveys, i’m not sure 60.4 is the applicable CL, but nevertheless, it’s a CE.
If i have read that wrong, and the quantities have reduced, then 60.4 would be applicable given the quantity of work done has changed by more the 0.5%, providing that bullets 1 & 2 also apply.
Thanks for the response. At the point of remeasurement then Cl.60.4 can be notified as the “Completion Date” has been reached. There remained no option to carry out the surveys past the Completion Date. The question is more regarding how best to price the work “never” completed, the Contractor would want compensating for this. Agreed the 60.1.(2) & (3) were routes to recover from before “Completion” was achieved, these would not be suitable to raise at Completion, hence the Cl.60.4 route.
Under option B you only use the bill of quantity rates to assess compensation events by agreement, so the starting position of the Contractor, which i understand is that they wish to use the BoQ rate to assess the impact is wrong. The Contractor should be assessing the Compensation Event using Defined Cost. By continuing this way, the Contractor should be able to demonstrate to you how this has increased their costs despite doing less surveys.
Logically, if the Contractor has done fewer surveys, you would expect to see some form of credit given the works were not provided. Bu