We have been issued a PMI for some work to grout behind a single side of sheet piled pit following the provision of a quotation. PMI issued under Cl14.3 (being a change in the Works information) (PMI 005)
This instruction required us to carry out the work on receipt of the instruction, which was impossible as the pit had not yet been excavated.
On the same instruction we were instructed to provide a further quote to include for an additional pit in another location on the site but substantially the same work.
Following some discussion and debate between the parties the PM issued Project Managers Notification 006 assessing the CE for BOTH pits but increasing the amount of work needed by reference to all faces of the initial pit. The prices included in the second quotation do not substantially change for the first pit other than some saving for management and a slight change in method.
My question is, having instructed the first pit in PMI 005 where do we stand with the subsequent PMN assessing both pits, which takes precedence?
There are a few of errors in this process. The Instruction should have been given prior to the quotation being submitted, if they wanted to know the cost up front this should have done through a Proposed Instruction.
With regard to when the action is taken, once the instruction is issued, the scope should be inserted in to the Contract programme when it is practicable to complete and then the outcome on the Planned Completion used to quote the time based element of the quote. It cannot be done before it can be done.
Second point is each individual instruction requires it’s own PMI and it’s own CE. They cannot group them together especially if they relate to different issues. They should be instructed separately and quoted separately in chronological order to allow the time and cost to be transparent. The PM can only do an assessment if you did not provide a quotation within the time allowed or the quote you did submit was not in accordance with the Contract.
Thanks for the reply. In terms of the comments regarding the instruction being issued before quotation being given, this is indeed what happened initially (I did not make myself particularly clear)
My issue was really about the Initial PMI being effectively superseded by the following PMN. As I was not around at the time I am at a loss as to what I can do to untangle the situation or even if the PMN is valid at all.
No one has been particularly good on this contract in terms of process and we are reaping the rewards now!
I would raise it with the PM that they Done a PM assessment of a different scope to the CE and that it is not valid. The only real way to overturn a PMS assessment is through disputes resolution which no one really wants. Better to have a frank discussion and try and get the PM to revisit his assessment or let you require this. If it involves raising a second CE to correct this then so be it. Not in accordance with the contract but in the spirit of mutual trust and cooperation
Not sure if I have understood the question or issue correctly. You have one instruction for different work in two pits. They should be assessed on their own merits, and the prices for work in one pit do not necessarily have any bearing on the price of the work on the second pit, all be it you are assessing it as one quotation.
Just to be clear, once the work was instructed, this should then have been notified as a compensation event (by PM under 61.1 or Contractor under 61.3) and a quotation requested. The Contractor would then give their price justification for work in both pits, and the PM will either accept it or not, and then either ask for another quote or assess it themselves (in accordance with the contract).