Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Greetings Professor,
During your lecture in Qatar you stated that the RATE becomes
inapplicable/inappropriate in 6 instances.
I kindly request you to elaborate these instances.
Too vast a topic for this short Q&A forum. The 6 reasons that we discussed, with
examples, during SCA class (which is expanded to further reasons and examples
during the advanced course) in brief are :1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
During the advanced class we discuss other reasons including the opportunity
left in (probably inadvertently) in FIDIC 1999 for contractors to claim varied rates
even in re-measurement contracts where the BOQ quantity differs from the
quantity of actual work shown in the drawings, which was not the case when we
were using FIDIC 1987 ! This would give rise to many disputes in the future.
(Next advanced class starts on 13th December 2013).
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Regards,
A.Akram, Technical Member, IQSSL
MEP Quantity Surveyor
----- Original Message ----From: Muhammad Irfan Yusuf
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Please help!
Regards
Irfan
----- Original Message ----From: Cecilia Daza
To: "sam99@eim.ae" <sam99@eim.ae>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Final Call - SCA class starting next Friday
This is in regards to our on-going project, there are some items which was not considered on
BOQ but mentioned in the drawing.
Those items are considered as new rate, in Part1- General Items we have a Supervision and
Labour paid in sum.
The Contractor is submitting their new rate adding a certain percentage for "Supervision".
Their argument on this issue - "the items are addition to the Contract".
My question is "This supervision cost will be covered by their Overhead and Profit, am I
correct?"
Since the work is shown in the drawings (though missing from the BOQ), it forms part of the
original scope of work, and therefore the Contractor is deemed to have allowed within the
General Items, the total cost of Supervision required to complete the full original scope of
work. Consequently the Contractors submission would not be successful. (If the contract is
FIDIC 4th edition or similar and of re-measurement type, there is provision under Sub-Clause
60.1 to value the work done, even though it may be missing from the BOQ. But if the
contract is FIDIC 1999, there is s difficulty because all work i.e. original scope of work and
variations has to be valued under Sub-Clause 12.3, which does not have a provision to
value items missing from the BOQ but shown in the drawings. This is another significant
shortcoming among many shortcomings in FIDIC 1999 which we discuss in detail during the
Advanced Class. The last Advanced Class for 2013 starts on December 13th.
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Dear Sir,
Further to your answer to the following question, I would like to clarify the following from you:
1.
FIDIC 99 Clause 5.1 b says that nominated Subcontractor means a Subcontractor whom
the Engineer, under Clause 13, instructs the Contractor to employ as a Subcontractor. This
is correct and therefore it is the Engineer who should nominate the Nominated
Subcontractor.
2.
Under Guidance for the preparation of particular Conditions, Page 8, it is stated that if the
Employer anticipates that a Subcontractor is to be instructed under Clause 13 but is not to
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Dear sir,
I am Alumini of 2012 Batch. I am working in a major infrastructure projects undergoing
in Abudhabi. I have one question regarding EOT.
This project is having four phases and each having separate milestone to complete the
work. During the progress of work the employer has deferred some portion of work from
phase I to phase 4 and as such the contractor is not in a position to complete the phase I
work as per the original contract.
Now the employer is telling the Phase I works are completed and the deferred works are
to be completed during the progress of other phases and it should be completed within
the completion date of pahse 4 and there is no additional EOT for the deferred portion to
be completed during the overall contract period.
However the contractor is arguing that we need additional time and cost to complete the
deferred works because we have to go back to phase I area to complete the deferred
works and due to this deferred works we are not in a position to handover the partially
completed works and also cost due site office maintenance mobilization and
demobilization.
Pl comment for a fair determination as per FIDIC 99 contract conditions.
The purpose of EOT is to avoid the levying of Delay Damages. If the Employer is not
levying Delay Damages for the late completion of the deferred part, then there is no
requirement of EOT.
Costs and EOT are two different issues. The deferment of part of the works amounts to a
Variation pursuant to Sub-Clause 13.1 (f), which Variation should be valued pursuant to
Sub-Clause 12.1. Such valuation would include all the additional costs that you are
referring to. (However, valuation of Variations under FIDIC 1999 is very complex due to
absence of adequate provisions in FIDIC 1999 requiring many interpretations, unlike in
FIDIC 1987. We discuss this topic in great detail with worked examples in the Advanced
Class. The last Advanced Class for 2013 starts on December 13th).
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Kindly clarify whether the Contractor needs to give a notice for additional
payment for a Variation arising
due to some change on drawings under FIDIC 1999 red book eg. change of
levels.
If the Engineer has instructed the Variation, then Notice is not required to value
the direct value of the Variation. Notice is only required if the Contractor intends
to claim EOT/Costs due to such Variation. If however the Variation is not as a
result of a direct instruction of the Engineer, but as a result of the Engineer
approving a proposal under Sub-Clause 13.3, then the Contractor needs to notify
the Engineer via that proposal, the value of the Variation or the proposed method
to calculate that value. We discuss these in detail during the Advanced Class.
The last Advanced Class for 2013 starts on December 13 th.
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Regards,
Wasantha.
----- Original Message ----From: kapila perera
To: "sam99@eim.ae" <sam99@eim.ae>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: FIDIC Yellow Book and Loss of profit issue
Dear Professor
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Dear Sir,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Dear Sir,
If you have time, appreciate your comments on following issue.
Conditions - FIDIC 1999
Can contractor propose to omit part of his work which according to contractors view is not necessary
for the project (Omission of sound insulation to fire pump room, as fire pump only works in the case of
fire). If so can this saving be considered as a value engineering under clause 13.2.
Yes, it could be proposed and the saving could be equally shared between the Employer and the
Contractor, if the Employer accepts the proposal, provided that Sub-Clause 13.2 is not otherwise
amended through Particular Conditions which usually is the case as we discuss during the Advanced
Class.(The last Advanced Class for 2013 starts on December 13th).
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Thanks,
regards, jerome
----- Original Message ----From: Tareq Tayeh
To: "sam99@eim.ae" <sam99@eim.ae>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Question for the SCA Course
Dear Prof.Sam,
Greetings!!!
First of all I would like to extend my great pleasure for the great SCA course given by your goodself
in the last june.
I am extremely sorry for being late to raise my questions but i was much busy in preparing for my
PMP exam,and then i went for a long vacation.
15-Is Final TOC=Performance Certificate? There is nothing called a Final TOC in standard forms of
contract such as FIDIC. Performance Certificate is the name give in FIDIC 1999 to a certificate
similar to the Defects Liability Certificate under FIDIC 1987. As we discuss in the advanced class,
new terminology introduced by FIDIC 1999 would give rise to many disputes. (The last Advanced
Class for 2013 starts on December 13th)
16-Under LS contract, if an item isnt mentioned in the drawing and not mentioned in the boq, but it is
mentioned in the specs, how to deal with it in case of +/-variation? Prepare a suitable rate/price for the
item (the total value of which is deemed to be included within the Lump Sum Contract Price). Use the
rate/price to value only the increase/decrease due to the instructed variation, and adjust the Lump Sum
Contract Price by that value.
17-Is this priority correct (conditions of contract, specs, dwg, boq)? This is correct for FIDIC 1999
but for FIDIC 1987 Specification, Drawings and BOQ are of equal priority but lower priority than the
Conditions of Contract. In FIDIC 1999 priority of documents create a huge problem, that the parties
did not have to face under FIDIC 1987, as we discuss in detail during the advanced class. (The last
Advanced Class for 2013 starts on December 13th)
Regards,
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Dear Sir,
Regarding few claims for additional cost in our Design and Build Contract the Engineer
requires us to justify the late filing of the claims.
Is there any provision to counter the argument?
The excerpts from the Engineer's letter is copied below.
In accordance with the requirements under Sub-Clause 20.1 of the General Conditions of
Contract(GCC).the Contractor shall give notice of a claim and send to the Engineer a fully
detailed claim within specified period of time, as follows:
1st paragraph, quote; "If the Contractor considers himself to be entitled..............................the
Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer, describing the event or circumstance giving rise
to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and no later than 28 days after
the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance."
unquote.
5th paragraph, quote; "Within 42 days after the Contractor became aware (or should have
become aware of the ...............................and additional payment claimed............"unquote.
Failure on the part of the Contractor to give notice of a claim within the period stated above,
the relevant condition under Sub-Clause 20.1 of the GCC, as stated below shall apply.
Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Surveyor, Chartered QS, Chartered Manager, Chartered Builder
Regards,
George