Our Bill of Quantities have 2 items for excavation for pile cap construction say item (A) with quantity of 560m3 for excavation depth not exceeding 3.00m and item (B) with quantity of 140m3 for excavation depth exceeding 3.00m but not exceeding 6.00m.
Once the excavation was completed, the final total quantities for item (A) was found 0m3 and item (B) was 674m3. However, the total quantities were not exceeding the total quantities stated in the Bill of Quantities i.e. 700m3.
Assuming the excavation works was on the critical path for completion of the works, can the Contractor get extension of time for changing item (B) quantity from 140m3 to 674m3 under ECC Clause 60.5?
Thank you for your advice.
However, I just don’t understand why even the total stated quantities (for 2 items) in the Bill of Quantities for the excavation work were similar with the actual final total quantity (for 1 item), the Contractor was still entitled to the “delay”
I agree they are entitled to a CE, due to an increased BOQ quantity for only item “B”. This would likely include time extension, but you also need to consider the impact of the other item (A), how did this impact the CE programme? (presumably a time/programme saving on “A”, but prolongation on “B”).
To answer your final question - It’s due to the wording of Cl.60.4 “stated for an item”, it’s giving potential time/cost entitlement to each separate item in the BoQ (you are not looking at it as the combined amount of A+B). Each “item” in a BoQ is listed out as “description” “quantity” x “rate”. The same logic as above applies i.e. time extension = yes likely, but what’s the betterment impact for the zero quantity of “A” ? The PM need to discuss this with the Contractor before implementing the CE.