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
    Hi all


    Thanks for all the input - I think it is right that the consultant should have done the update to 18th since not really massive updates.


    The contractor is also right to be wanting to certificate to 18th as sticking to 17th while possible is a bit lame for a fairly small job - not like the giant ones Andy J was alluding to. 


    The costs will probably when finalised, end up not being massive so as Chris Pearson said, maybe that can be renegotiated.


    The Client side is not squeaky clean, particularly in terms of timely approvals and responses, so they should be able to work something out.


    May also largely balance out naturally as some value engineering has been done in other parts.


    Just highlights how D and Bs can cause problems if things are not done right and especially if the contractor is not given enough time to really go through stuff and satisfy themselves about what they are getting in to.


Reply
  • 0
    Hi all


    Thanks for all the input - I think it is right that the consultant should have done the update to 18th since not really massive updates.


    The contractor is also right to be wanting to certificate to 18th as sticking to 17th while possible is a bit lame for a fairly small job - not like the giant ones Andy J was alluding to. 


    The costs will probably when finalised, end up not being massive so as Chris Pearson said, maybe that can be renegotiated.


    The Client side is not squeaky clean, particularly in terms of timely approvals and responses, so they should be able to work something out.


    May also largely balance out naturally as some value engineering has been done in other parts.


    Just highlights how D and Bs can cause problems if things are not done right and especially if the contractor is not given enough time to really go through stuff and satisfy themselves about what they are getting in to.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines