Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we deliver the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Excavation below formation

6 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2007-07-24 03:12
Bolisetti Jogiraju
User offline. Last seen 6 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Jul 2007
Posts: 32
Groups: None
Hi
Friends !

We have a situation like this......

contract is Lump Sum with provisions of variations.

Engineer instructed the contractor to excavate further depth(below formation) due to unsuitability of material.Contractor did it and claims for extra costs of add’l excavation and fill material.

but,Drawing says " fill with type B material as required after,remove all unsuitable/organic soil from site".

Is contractor entitled for his claim ?

Cheers

Top

Replies

Sun, 2007-07-29 01:40
#1
Bolisetti Jogiraju
User offline. Last seen 6 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Jul 2007
Posts: 32
Groups: None
Hi
Friends !

Thanks for participating in this topic.

I have mentioned earlier that "Contractor was instructed to excavate further,due to unsuitable material existence".

Cheers
Top
Fri, 2007-07-27 09:36
#2
Richard Spedding
User offline. Last seen 6 years 33 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 127
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas, The GrapeVine
Calm down boys

I will lay you good odds that the contract passes all risk of unforeseen ground conditions on to the contractor - almost all of them do nowadays!

Therefore the contractor has taken the risk that it may be necessary to excavate soft spots below formation level and included for this risk within his lump sum.

Therefore there is no claim.

If the contract is the good old sort, where the client takes that risk, then the contractor has a claim for additional costs and time.
Top
Sat, 2007-07-28 00:18
#3
Karim Mounir
User offline. Last seen 10 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Apr 2006
Posts: 314
Groups: None
Hi Bolisetti,

Some contracts contains a condition which states that (if necessary) the contractor should do some boreholes to investigate the soil condition and he should bear these expenses.

The point is that if the soil condition is different than the condition listed in the specs./drawings then he should be reimbursed for the additional expenses resulting from the additional quantities needed to be excavated/backfilled (ie. if the soil is found to be rocky rather than sandy).

But in your condition I think that there is no difference in the soil condition, just additional quantities of excavation & backfilling which isn’t enough to support a claim.

Regards,
Karim
Top
Tue, 2007-07-24 07:42
#4
Skan Bu
User offline. Last seen 14 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 118
Groups: None
Hi,

Maybe I have misunderstood "Lump Sum" too but
The Lump Sum just means that the contract is per the Sum (price) for the Original Works so if there is a variation which in theis case there is an instruction by the engineer then surely there must be a "Variation".
Has this Variation have any financial implication?
Has this Variation have any time implication?

What is the consultant arguying?
Is it in the original work? This can be easily identify from the drawings, the specifications and BQ.
If there is a change in level, then there must be a Varaition so the Quantum have to be adjusted & so the contractor should be paid (maybe at the rates agreed in the BQ)
TIME, surely, if there is an increase in work load as in quantum, then there must be time allowed to do teh extra work so long as you place the relevant notice as according to the Contarct.
It is the consultant responsibility to value and award the EOT. Failure to do so could well be neligent?????

penny worth of my comment

Thanks

Top
Tue, 2007-07-24 07:06
#5
Bolisetti Jogiraju
User offline. Last seen 6 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Jul 2007
Posts: 32
Groups: None
Jaya !
Thanks for your openion.

Contractor was instructed to excavate below formation level.Consultant aurgument is that its included in original scope of works upto any depth,as it is Lump Sum Contract.

cheers
Top
Tue, 2007-07-24 06:07
#6
J Venkatesh PMP P...
User offline. Last seen 12 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Groups: GPC Qatar
Did you exacavate below the founding level (RL) as given in the drawings...check the specs and the drawings and the priority of the same ....

If client/consultant had mentioned the levels and further instructed to excavate below, then u can put a claim...

This is my opinion..let us wait for the contract experts comments..
Top