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 1242 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?




  • 0
    I can see that an electrical contractor will not have the expertise to design the layout for stage lighting, so a consultant is required to write a brief.


    If the consultant just specified a 32-amp socket here and a 64-amp socket there leaving the contractor to actually do the electrical design, specifying cabling and protective devices, then the contractor assumes responsibility.


    However if the consultant provided detailed layout drawings and specifications, maybe even going as far as being manufacturer specific for the equipment to be installed then it surely has to be down to the consultant, unless there is a clause in the contract saying that responsibility for design shifts from the consultant and the contractor has to install to the latest version of the regulations.


    Maybe the consultant actually did too much work and was not brief enough.


    Andy B.
  • 0
    Hi Andy, the actual documentation does actually clearly say design responsibility to be with the contractor and lists all the elements. 


    So a little too much was done then.


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


    Maybe a case of the spec being a last line of defence to cover a rushed and flawed design that could quite easily have been updated to 18th.


    Also thanks for your insight Andy J.


    Good point, but I think for this job it was likely not updated because someone forgot the 18th was in force as supposed to any practical reason



  • 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.


  • 0
    "A design and build job originally designed to Stage 3 level detail during 17th edition times (2017) "

    "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) "

    "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? "


    As AJ mentioned the original design was in 2017.  I will make an assumption that "the contractor" made their tender/quote in 2017, that may not be the case, but I would hope in their tender they added constraint of possible repricing for extra costs to 18th due to,  then not wholly known, changes to the standard if the works actual started in 2019. That would be the usual practice design and build or not.  Even if the Contractor only priced at mid 2019, it would seem instruction was that design, as it was, to 17th, was good enough, so likely with the Contractor adding a caveat to tender reserving right to charge for extra costs if the work needed to be to 18th.

    I cannot see how the Contractor could reasonably be expected to apply Crystal Ball methodology and take the hit.

  • 0
    Wording about the coming into force of Amendment 1:2020 does not mention design, and is based on the date the erection starts on site ... but only mentions installations falling within the scope of Secton 722 ...
  • 0
    Sparkingchip:

    BS7671:2018 was released on the 1st July 2018 and will become effective from 1st January 2019, but the new edition can be used immediately.


    The consultant reworked the design in 2019, after the new regs came into force.


     


    This really smacks of trying to make the contractor bear the cost of the consultants errors and omissions.


    Andy B.


  • 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.


  • 0
    In my experience D and B are a nightmare because some design decisions, like how much power the client will need in a certain area, cannot be left to the contractor and others, like which MCB a new circuit is fed from, are best left to the contractor. What makes it even worse is when the consultant produces drawings that are almost good enough to be construction drawings and then expects the contractor to produce the 'as fitted' drawings but hasn't given the original drawing files to the contractor to be updated.

Community Rules & Guidelines