Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

My comments on the following questions are given in red below, which you may find useful.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

----- Original Message ----From: sathis jayaweera


To: sam99@emirates.net.ae
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 23:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Class of Spring 2008 - Q&A 1

Dear Prof. Sam


This Question related to CESMM3 with Remeasured Contract.
As we studies the reinforcement steel measured in "Tonne" in accordance with
CESMM3.
In practice at the post contract stage, we take the quantities from approved BBS (bar
bending schedules) and generally reinforcement laps are included in their.
Looking into CESMM3, paragraph 5.18 this matter not much clear it say The quantities
shall be computed net using dimension from Drawings,.
Please clarify, the lap lengths (design laps or/ and normal laps) need to be deducted from
the BBS?
Normal Laps
CESMM3 requires all work to be measured net and therefore normal laps should not be
measured. Generally, a bent bar should be out of a whole bar length and not from joined
pieces (unless permitted, but at Contractors cost) and therefore as far as the unbent bar
does not exceed a standard bar length, the question of laps does not arise. If the BBS
shows otherwise, care should be taken to deduct such laps. If the length exceeds a
standard bar length, still the laps should not be measured as the Rate is deemed to include
the cost of laps because the Item Description would state the unusual bar length
according to Rule A7. If however the BOQ Compiler forgot to follow Rule A7, then the
Contractor should not suffer for that, and the laps should be measured.
Design Laps
If the Design Laps are either not measured in the BOQ as Special Joints according to
Classification G550 or referred to in the Preamble, then they should be measured and
paid as missed-out items, or alternatively, if the Contractor agrees, the laps could be
added to the reinforcement quantities.
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Thanks
W.P.S.K. Jayaweera
----- Original Message ----From: ramkumar
To: "Prof. Sam" <sam99@emirates.net.ae>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:03:25 +0400
Subject: clarifications
Dear Prof Sam,
We need some clarification from you for an ongoing project.
The original time for completion of the project is 240 days, which was on Sept 2007.In
that period we have carried out only the materials and shop drawing submissions. The
actual site works started by January 2008 and all the works are expected to be completed
by August 2008.In this scenario, pl advise us on the following.
1. whether we can submit new rates for all the works or the price escalation in material,
labour ,plant to be worked out and included in the EOT claims? If you can prove that the
Employer prevented you from procuring the material and Plant within the original Time
for Completion, you may have a good case. Regarding labour, your entitlement may be
limited to in-house wage increases and not to procuring labour from market at higher
prices.
2.For any new items, can we able to give rate analysis based on the present market rates
or contract rate schedule only to be used? If the new items you are referring to are
variations which are not necessary or not appropriate to complete the original scope of
work, then you can claim new rates provided that you served a timely notice pursuant to
Sub-Clause 52.2 (a).
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Regards

Ram kumar
-----Original Message----From: sathis jayaweera [mailto:sathisjayaweera@yahoo.com]
Sent: 04 May 2008 12:00
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject: Re: Test Email to "Class of Spring 2008"
Prof. Sam
I, W.P.S.K. Jayaweera. The my second Question as follows.
1.) If CESMM3 is a method of measurements of a BOQ. Can we consider as CESMM3 is
a part of Contract documents ? Generally Contracts state what the Contract Documents
are. You have to study that provision in detail and verify whether there are adequate links
to consider that CESMM3 has been incorporated as a Contract Document. A mere
reference in the Preamble to say that the BOQ is prepared according to CESMM3 does
not make CESMM3 a Contract Document.
2.) Supposed, in a BoQ some items were not line with the CESMM3, if the Contractor
point out that. What action the Engineer needs to take and any consequences ( like
variations) The completed work should be measured according to CESMM3 and new
rates should be agreed/fixed for all items that the BOQ Compiler failed to measure
correctly or missed-out. It would not be a variation, but a correction of incorrect
measurements.
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Thanks
W.P.S.K. Jayaweera
----- Original Message ----From: Basheer
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 10:21:41 +0400
Subject: RE: Dear Class of Spring 2008 - Q&A 1

Dear Sir,
I attended your class of spring 2008, it was very much useful for a APC candidate like me, thank
you very much for your valuable time.

Kindly clarify the following


1) What are the main differences between FIDIC red book 1987 and 1999. Not easy to answer
in a short reply. There are many differences, but the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties
are much the same in both.
2) I am working for a cost consultant, one of our small scale project is a design and build
contract ended with many additional works, I was not involved in this project during the
construction, now I am evaluating the final accounts since the person who worked for this
project left our company, these additional works neither have any variation orders nor
recorded in minutes of meetings, so as a professional, am I suppose to approve these
additional works?, note that as per Contractor, all additional works were instructed by
Client, but no records are available. It is quite unlikely that any Client would allow a
Contractor to build any additional things on his project without a request/instruction. If
these additional work are clearly additional to the original scope of work (or original
design intent / performance specification), then the Contractor is entitled to an additional
payment.
Thanks and Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mohamed Basheer (MSc, BSc)

-----Original Message----From: sathis jayaweera [mailto:sathisjayaweera@yahoo.com]


Sent: 04 May 2008 09:36
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject: Dear Alumni of the "Sound Contract Administration" Course, "Class of Spring
2008"
Prof. Sam
I, W.P.S.K. Jayaweera. I address the following question?
As we know, In UAE mostly used FIDIC 4th, type of COC, and that COC for Work of
Civil Engineering Construction. Notwithstanding the Consultant and Employers are used
same COC for Works for Building Construction. Is this correct practice? There is no
reason why FIDIC 4th cannot be used for a building contract as long as Part I - General
Conditions are customized through Part II Conditions for Particular Application, to suit
the circumstances (Remeasurement to Lumpsum etc.)
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Thanks
W.P.S.K. Jayaweera.
----- Original Message ----From: "Noufel K.Mohamed"
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 15:15:24 +0400
Subject: Float in the Clause 14 Program

Dear Dr. Sam


Please spare few minutes to answer.
In the Jan 2008, For one question in the class, you answered that Float in Clause 14 program
submitted by the Contractor is belongs to Whoever utilize it first, means either the Contractor or
the Client who utilizes the Float first, they are eligible for it. Let me correct this. I did not say that
the Float belongs to whoever utilizes it first. What I said is that whoever gets to the Float first can
utilize it, as the Float belongs to the Project and not to an individual.
For this answer can you please give any supporting clause in FIDIC or some thing? The
Contractors obligation to mitigate delays that could be inferred from Sub-Clause 41.1 and the
Contractors implied obligation to mitigate delays existing in law, do not permit a Contractor to
hang on to a Float and not allow it to be consumed by the delaying event. In other words, if a
Contractor produces a recovery programme or a delay impact programme, still showing the Float,
then he is not discharging his obligation to mitigate.
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Thanks & Best regards


Noufel
----- Original Message ----From: Ashlyn Almeida
To: " Prof. Sam " <sam99@emirates.net.ae>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:12:59 +0400
Subject: Re: Sp08-Q&A1
Dear Prof Sam
We have recently signed a contract with a contractor. Dewatering was a requirement on the job. It appears
from the contractors price he did not anticipate dewatering and thought the water table to be lower inspite of
the soil investigation report being provided indicating the water table. Unknown to even us the Engineer the
discharge point for dewatering is some 6-8 kms away from the site. Every tender states it to be mandatory
that the contractor visit the site and familiarise himself with the requirements. The contractor assumed the
point to be 100-200 m away, if he had to dewater. Does the contractor qualify for a variation since the
discharge point is so far ?

If he qualified his Tender regarding his assumption of 100-200m distance and the Employer accepted the
Tender unconditionally, then the new distance is a variation, irrespective of whether or not he visited the Site.
If there was no such qualification/acceptance and if all the documents are silent about the distance, then it is
at Contractors risk. This comment equally applies to the question of water table.
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

regards
Ashlyn
----- Original Message ----From: sathis jayaweera
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 05:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Dear Class of Spring 2008 - Q&A 1

Dear Prof. Sam


In accordance with RTA Conditions of Contract Sub Clause 44.2, if the Contractor has
not fulfill Sub Clause 44.2(a) & (b) The Engineer shall not make any determination for
Extension to time for Completion.
During the time of Sound Contract Administration training. I understood (if I am wrong,
Pls correct me), the law may allow, the Contractor entitlement even the Contractor has
not serve the notices. Yes, if the notice requirement is not a condition precedent.
Looking into the above matter. What opinion the Engineer can give to the Employer and
the Contractor? The Engineer should inform the Employer that the Contractors
entitlement exists, but the Engineer is prevented from determining it because of the words
shall not, and therefore to restore it to the original wording of FIDIC through an
addendum signed by both Employer and Contractor, so that the Engineer can determine
the EOT.
Is there any provision in CoC (other than law) to sort out this types of dilemma? Not if
the Engineers authority is removed by use of words shall not
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Regards
W.P.S.K. Jayaweera
----- Original Message ----From: "arunachalam.murugan"
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 15:43:38 +0400
Subject: RE: Dear Class of Spring 2008 - Q&A 1

Dear Professor Sam,

Please accept my heartfelt thanks for your valuable continued service to the Industry
and to your Students, specially for your intention to extend your knowledge to us through
this Q & A.
I am most admired by your 30 hour Training which has really provided me a much high
confidence level in arguing/ discussing the contractual/ commercial matters with my
peers and Seniors in a much better way I have ever done before.
I could observe that my ability to understand the core of some of the contractual issues
has been tremendously improved and I feel myself proud and courage to face many
interesting issues in the future ( in my career as a QS).
Thank you so much again for the continued support.
With Best Regards
Arunachalam
Quantity Surveyor
DE LEEUW MIDDLE EAST
DUBAI
Dear Mr. Arunachalam,
Many thanks.

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Dear Professor Sam


On behalf of Proscape team which participated in the Class of Spring 2008, I like to thank you for
clarifying so many contractual issues which we are facing now a days , while executing the
contract.
We have much clarity in our obligations, rights and liabilities, better than before.
Thank you.

Regards,
Ram Kumar
General Manager
Dear Mr. Ram Kumar,
You are welcome.

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Похожие интересы