Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1254 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Old design to 17th Edition updated to 18th - query on responsibilities

me1899
Hi All


Slightly convoluted question:


1. A design and build job originally designed to Stage 3 level detail during 17th edition times (2017)


2. Updated by consultant to Stage 4 detail mid 2019, still design and build, but not updated in line with 18th edition (presumably erroneous thinking on the part of the consultant that because the job was to the 17th and the stage 4 was not considered a major redesign from first principles, then it did not need updating)


3. Job being installed now in 2020.


4. Given that the contractor has taken on design responsibility, are they right to try and claim additional costs for redesigning in line with the 18th edition? Or would they be expected to have noted and included for this seeing as they were appointed late 2019? 


I think personally that it would be argued the contractor should have picked this up and flagged in their pricing that they would need to update the design to the 18th.


What do others think?




Parents
  • 0
    me1899:

    Hi Andy, the actual documentation does actually clearly say design responsibility to be with the contractor and lists all the elements. 


    ...


    Also seen another clause that says design to be to current BS7671 regs.


    I think that answers your own question; except that "current BS7671 regs" may be interpreted two ways. (1) Current at the time the contract was agreed; or (2) current at the time the work starts. If the gap is a lengthy one, the contractor probably takes on a greater risk, but that would apply in any case due, for example, to currency fluctuations and the cost of supplies. The devil is in the detail!


    There is always scope for renegotiation, but that depends on whether either party wishes to enforce the contract as it stands, or is willing to compromise. From the sound of it, the sum in dispute does not justify the cost of enforcement.


Reply
  • 0
    me1899:

    Hi Andy, the actual documentation does actually clearly say design responsibility to be with the contractor and lists all the elements. 


    ...


    Also seen another clause that says design to be to current BS7671 regs.


    I think that answers your own question; except that "current BS7671 regs" may be interpreted two ways. (1) Current at the time the contract was agreed; or (2) current at the time the work starts. If the gap is a lengthy one, the contractor probably takes on a greater risk, but that would apply in any case due, for example, to currency fluctuations and the cost of supplies. The devil is in the detail!


    There is always scope for renegotiation, but that depends on whether either party wishes to enforce the contract as it stands, or is willing to compromise. From the sound of it, the sum in dispute does not justify the cost of enforcement.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines