The BoQ for an NEC3 ECC Option B contract for reinforced concrete works has an item for 20no reinforcement couplers, which the Subcontractor has priced. The method of measurement (MCHW May 2009) actually includes ‘mechanical fixings’ (ie couplers) as an item coverage for ‘reinforcement’. Therefore this is an issue that cl 60.6 should address as it is a departure from the rules for items descriptions and there should never have been a separate line for couplers.
As well as that issue, the actual number of couplers was far higher (a few hundred). There were also couplers used on another structure, but none of these were included in the BoQ.
My interpretation of how to deal with it is that we instruct via cl17.1/60.6 correcting the BOQ which will remove the ‘rogue’ description, and cl 60.7 says that the subcontractor has assumed the BoQ is correct and therefore we still pay for the 20no couplers but no more, ie their quotation is zero value. Cl 60.7 doesn’t give them license to claim that they didn’t include for ‘mechanical fixings’ in the rest of their reinforcement rates does it?
We interpret that the Subcontractor has included for ‘mechanical connections’ within their rate, as per the MoM, which covers the couplers they have installed.
Is this correct? The subcontractor is saying that they ‘didn’t include mechanical fixings in their rate’ (although there are no exclusions in their contract) and therefore should be paid for all of the couplers via re-measure (for those in the BOQ) and CE for those that weren’t included…