I think the 17.1 clause is possibly the simplest clause to resolve if both parties agree what (or more specifically when) an ambiguity is ambiguous.
My case in point. The main contract (works information) states that the contractor will design those items listed in the ‘contractor design portion at appendix 18’. The works information also states that the contractor is to use a specialist flue company to ‘design’ manufacture and install the flue. The requirement to design the flue is not on the list of CDP items at appendix 18, and is a statement in the sub-consultants Spec. Agreed this is potentially an inconsistency and the contract explains how to deal with this.
The issue I have is the contractor has already engaged the services of the specialist flue designer and submitted a design for approval, and is only now saying this in an inconsistency and ambiguity.
My gut is saying at the time of tender and awarding the subcontract to the flue specialist the contractor did not see this as an ambiguity, and therefore it was not ambiguous or they would have raise an EW.
Now the QS’s have got hold of it, they can see an extra claim for the ‘design’.
Can this be right?
I get the concept WI, states wooden and gold door handles, PM confirms gold and contractor is compensated for the difference in price between the less and more expensive. But if the WI states wooden and gold, and the contractor installs gold (and that was what the Employer wanted) without raising an ambiguity, can they really retrospectively claim an ambiguity?
Really welcome any advise you could give