We are working on an option B where the client provided a Boq and we priced the works accordingly.
After award, and after works had started, the client decided that one of the BoQ items didn’t appear to be correct and has removed it and it’s subsequent cost.
They state that the item contained in that line item is deemed included in another.
The reality is, that because the client provided 2 separate line items, we priced it as 2 seperate items. The WI doesn’t distinguish them as 2 seperate items, just the BoQ.
Now we are in the situation of having completed priced works but the client has removed our ability to be paid for this.
If they are suggesting that the deleted item is deemed to be included elsewhere then there must be a method of measurement that they are referencing. If that’s the case then they haven’t prepared their BoQ in accordance with the MoM and have expressly directed the tenderer to price that element of the works that would have been deemed included separately.
Perhaps a TQ at tender stage may have clarified, but as none of the tenderers queried (in which case clarification would have been given) then I would take that as being clear that the ‘deemed included’ element is to be priced separately and recovered separately.
The suggestion that the costs of completing this activity are now included elsewhere cannot be correct as this would have resulted in the tenderer pricing the works twice, a) in the item where it is now deemed to be included and then b) in the new item measured outside of the MoM. This simply wouldn’t occur in a competitive tendering situation.
What was the purpose of the Client measuring this item separately if it wasn’t to be measured as completed? Personally, I would be looking at the ambiguity position as a starting point.
Pragmatically it would be a simple task to demonstrate what costs have been allowed for within the rate which should resolve the matter.
Rgds
2 Likes
Thanks for your response.
Unfortunately the ambiguity clause has been amended that the client can correct an ambiguity at no cost to them. This is the route they are using to remove the bill item.
You’re response confirms that we are correct in stating the client can’t just remove this (it was their BoQ spreading the items and it is stated as 2 seperate items in the pre tender TQs) however they won’t reconsider using these facts. We’re at a stalemate but unfortunately we are the only ones who are taking the pain.
Again, looking at this at high level with only the information provided, why would the correction of an ambiguity cost them any more money? You’re not asking for anymore (or are unlikely to be). Whether it sits in the bill item they have issued for pricing or had sat in the item to which they are now referencing, then the cost to them would be the same.
Alternatively, Cl.60.6 requires an instruction to correct a mistake in the bill which is a departure from the rules for item descriptions in the method of measurement… and each such correction is a compensation event.
By their logic they can arbitrarily delete bill items contained within their issued BoQ under the banner of not being measured in accordance with the method of measurement with no recourse whatsoever and in theory only seek to pay a proportion of the price of the works with no liability to the Client whatsoever !!
2 Likes