A small commercial conundrum
In my quest to get works in thermal plant rooms underway I’m still chasing down builderswork interconnections that have been missed. In order to get the works underway a simple instruction is requied, which is easy to get from the blockwork-package QS. It’s him that who makes the decision as to who will cover the costs for the remedial work, but I had to provide the background information as to what has happened. In this instance the requirement was for 3 no holes to be formed in a blockwork wall which were missed at the time of construction due to the blockwork contractor (Swift) not having the information at the time of construction. The issue is complicated slightly by the fact that the BWIC details have subsequently been revised. The timeline of events is as follows:
03 March 15 – SRW issues BWIC information to CCL, drawing revision is C01.
02 June 15 – Swift start constructing blockwork in thermal plant room 12.
05 June 15 – CCL issue CO1 revision BWIC information to Swift (our informaiotn management isn’t exactly great, but that could be a completely seperate blog).
09 June 15 –Swift complete blockwork in this area, BWIC formed on one wall, but 3 missing on another wall.
02 Jul 15 – SRW issue CO2 version of BWIC information to CCL. Hole location does not change, but size does (increases).
05 Jul 15 –CCL issue CO2 BWIC information to Swift
I ran this by an MEP QS prior to submitting it who was unable to shed any light on who would pay. I’ve had the instruction issued and the work has been carried out, but I’ve not had the opportunity yet to discuss the matter with the blockwork QS for my education. In my mind the CO2 revision would have caused Swift to have to carry out the work anyway and the differenct between knocking out 2 blocks and blocks is minimal so SRW should bear the cost (which will be trivial). Thoughts?
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Ignoring all of the aspects in advance of the 02 July request to enlarge the holes. It is now very simple. Swift enlarge holes as instructed and invoice SWL accordingly for ‘builders work in connection with’. If they wish to leave the piece in the middle of the expanded hole in place I’d be fascinated to see it done. If they have to remove the middle of the hole at the same time (as they clearly do) then as long as SWL are picking up the labour and materials removal/recycling costs thee should be no impact on Swifts invoice. That’s my thoughts anyway – wonder if Gregg agrees…
What is the wording in Swift’s T&C’s regarding BWIC? If no contingency sum has been included for missed services in their contract and incomplete service pipe location information was made available to them when the blockwork was built you are hardly in a position to backcharge them for not being able to second guess the final route of E&M pipe installation. If the MEP designer (SRW?) missed a contract deadline for the supply of this information you could contra charge them for the extra Swift BWIC cost you have incurred, or at least formally record the issue with them for the final day of reckoning…! Regards Greg
Richard, Greg – Thanks.
SRW didn’t miss any deadlines with regards to the CO1 drawing. So if it hadn’t been for the CO2 drawing being issued CCL would have born the cost. Luckily for CCL there has been a design change to the routing of the drainage, which means SRW had to issue a CO2 version of the BWIC drawing in this area. This has allowed CCL to instruct Swift to do the work whilst contra charging SRW.