NEC4 Option B - The contractor has advised that that back-propping (propping beyond the floor immediately below the soffits concerned) is required to the formwork for the installation of in-situ concrete slabs, the Contractor has notified a CE for the back-propping element and advise that back-propping is not indicated in the scope of work. The scope documents identify that the design of all temporary works for structural concrete is to be undertaken by the contractor, “All falsework and formwork design are to be undertaken by the contractor to allow for all static and dynamic loading combinations” with the design engineer advising that back-propping is an industry standard practice. Temporary propping has been identified in the BoQ but not the back-propping element. With the scope identifying all falsework and formwork to be designed by the contractor is their CE notification valid? It has been notified as a change in scope 60.1(1) although there has been no change in design of the concrete slab itself. Would this potentially be a CE under 60.6 or should this back-propping have been allowed for in the contractors tender as part of their design of temporary works? The contractor was also part of an ECI on the project and this issue was not raised during this process.
Temporary works are usually a matter for the Contractor to decide on to suit their method of work etc. The requirement for temporary works to the slab is not a change to the Scope and not a CE under 60.1(1).
In terms of a bill omission (60.6) this will depend upon the stated method of measurement in Contract Data Part 1 and if you have adhered to the standard rules or any you have created. You state that “Temporary propping has been identified in the BoQ”, but its not clear if this is a general (preamble) statement or if it is an item for pricing. If you have included specific items for pricing then you may well have set a precedence so I suggest you should check.
Thank you Dave. To clarify, the RICS NRM2 method of measurement has been used and the propping for formwork has been measured specifically in the BoQ representing the clear height of the propping required from the immediate floor below to which rates have been applied. No through propping is identified in the BoQ as a specific item. On this basis would a CE claim from the Contractor be a valid notification or does the responsibility of the contractor to design the falsework take precedence and the liability of cost of through propping lie with the contractor?
This is more of an issue about interpretation of NRM than it is of NEC per se. If back propping is covered by the NRM description etc then there’s no CE (subject to bespoke amendments) as there’s no mistake in the bill. Otherwise it would be a CE.