It comes down to what you knew at tender or as the saying goes, ought to have reasonably known. It may amount to a variation or alternatively it could be no more than a clarification of an ambiquity on the drawing.
If the electrical equipment was shown on the drawings at tender then it was pretty obvious thay had to have a power connection to them from somewhere - even I could work that one out and Im not an electrian.
A full electrical design check on the power loadings and cable sizing etc would not in my opinion be a reasonable expection at tender stage. A basic check would.
Go back and look at the tender information and ask yourself questions like:
Have I got the information that would allow me to estimate the power requirements for these machines and hence take a stab at what power connection would be required?
Even if I can, is there any clues as to where the power connections would come from? - overhead, ducted underground, etc.
Once youve done that, compare what youve come up with against what youre now being asked to do and if its vastly different, claim the DIFFERENCE as additional work.
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Thu, 2006-01-12 14:44
In General layout design drawings (Electrical) many equipments were shown which were not having corresponding power supply line in concerned design drawings.
During construction stage Contractor raised a query for clarification. Designer provided the clarification.
Now does the works resulted from clarification constitutes variation?
Cheers,
Razi Khan
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Thu, 2006-01-12 06:45
IMHO, the correctness and sufficiency of the tender is only applicable to the information provided in the tender. Other exercise that are impractical to conduct at the tender stage are not included in the said clause.
With regards to electrical power load calculation and correponding electrical schematic diagram, we need more information on the real situation before we can have a more valid opinion to share with you.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: FIDIC 87 - Clause 12.1
Razi,
It comes down to what you knew at tender or as the saying goes, ought to have reasonably known. It may amount to a variation or alternatively it could be no more than a clarification of an ambiquity on the drawing.
If the electrical equipment was shown on the drawings at tender then it was pretty obvious thay had to have a power connection to them from somewhere - even I could work that one out and Im not an electrian.
A full electrical design check on the power loadings and cable sizing etc would not in my opinion be a reasonable expection at tender stage. A basic check would.
Go back and look at the tender information and ask yourself questions like:
Have I got the information that would allow me to estimate the power requirements for these machines and hence take a stab at what power connection would be required?
Even if I can, is there any clues as to where the power connections would come from? - overhead, ducted underground, etc.
Once youve done that, compare what youve come up with against what youre now being asked to do and if its vastly different, claim the DIFFERENCE as additional work.
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: FIDIC 87 - Clause 12.1
Hi Razi,
On whose side you are in among the 5 parties?
Naturally, the owner will say it is not a variation. The same statement will come from the Project Management, consultant and designer.
Only the contractor will claim that it is a variation.
The above is the natural game play in construction.
For your specific case study, again i find your information insufficient to share any professional opinion.
Cheers,
Charlie
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: FIDIC 87 - Clause 12.1
Thanks Andrew & Charleston
It is not a Design & Built Contractor.
Following are the different parties.
1. Owner.
2. Project Manager
3. Designer.
4. Contractors ( 5 Different Contractor ).
In General layout design drawings (Electrical) many equipments were shown which were not having corresponding power supply line in concerned design drawings.
During construction stage Contractor raised a query for clarification. Designer provided the clarification.
Now does the works resulted from clarification constitutes variation?
Cheers,
Razi Khan
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: FIDIC 87 - Clause 12.1
Razi,
The other info we need is:
Is it a design and build contract or Employer design, Contractor build contract?
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: FIDIC 87 - Clause 12.1
Hi Razi,
IMHO, the correctness and sufficiency of the tender is only applicable to the information provided in the tender. Other exercise that are impractical to conduct at the tender stage are not included in the said clause.
With regards to electrical power load calculation and correponding electrical schematic diagram, we need more information on the real situation before we can have a more valid opinion to share with you.
Cheers,
Charlie