Prior to contract, the envisaged design used an ‘open cut’ technique to form a structure. A redesign has been incorporated after contract award which now uses a pipejack, the approach for which has been instructed by the PM and agreed NCE at £0 value. The forecasted cost (and future defined cost) is deemed to be mutually beneficial on a NEC 3 Option C Target Cost contract being used.
A dispute has arisen over a handful of obstruction that are identified in the GBR, and WI, at either end of the proposed length of the structure.
The Contractor, informed via the GBR and WI, will be conducting trail holes in the areas of the identified obstructions to remove them before pipejacking. By exception the other areas are assumed to be the PM/ Employers risk, via NCE, but have indicated they do not wish to instruct the remaining area of the structure for early site investigation.
Can you advise on the basis:
- That the GBR is not methodology based/ dependant to be valid for an NCE.
- The PM/ Employer deems the Contractor is liable for the additional costs to remove an ‘unforeseen’ obstruction due to the changed methodology or having increased the Employers risks despite the approach being instructed for the mutual benefit for the project