Hello. We are a groundworks subcontractor on a large project and are finding that the main contractor either doesnt understand the NEC3 or are choosing to administer as a JCT and deeming items included within the BQ descriptions. They also refer to tender drawings being the basis of our price even though the information didnt make the works information and the entire agreement clause remains.
The method of measurement is SMM7 and the BQ is fairly loose in terms of description. For instance the BQ will say “pits” with no further description, but the works information may have a pit detail. In this instance would the works information prevail in that the description was to include for everything on that specific detail even though the description was just pits? We also have the scenario where there is a loose description but nothing in the works information.
I look forward to your advice. Thank you in advance.
Tom, welcome to the group. I believe that the two clauses below should suffice for you to demonstrate to the Contractor that it is the Subcontract Works Information (including any references within it) which matters in relation to the queries set out:
Clause 20.1: The Subcontractor Provides the Subcontract Works in accordance with the Subcontract Works Information.
Clause 55.1: Information in the Bill of Quantities is not Subcontract Works Information or Site Information.
Should you come across any ambiguity, it will need to be notified (by either Party, in accordance with cl. 17.1) and the Contractor should give an instruction resolving it, based on the above; if this results in changing the Subcontract Works Information (e.g. by adding something missing which is referred to in the BoQ), you then have a compensation event under cl. 60.1 (1) that needs to be notified, if not notified within the instruction under cl. 61.1.
Hi Peter, thanks for the response - really helpful.
I appreciate that we have to deliver the works information and the BQ doesnt form part of such. Based on this, am I correct in saying that any BQ description that seems ambiguous in terms of not relating to the Works Information (or vice versa there is no BQ description, but within the Works Information), or perhaps an item is not desribed properly in accordance with the prescribed SMM, all of which would therefore require a correction of description under cl 17.1 potentially giving rise to a CE?
Furthermore, if there is issue of new Works Information, and construction details change slightly and we believe that the description is no longer valid for remeasurement, this is a straight CE?