Entitlement to payment on day-work basis

Sam,

Unless they are contradicted on the record immediately by the client, eventually they will stand as the true record of the work done.

I seem to recall a case on this, but the name escapes me.


John

Sam,

Sorry, my previous reply was incomplete.

Just because the contractor considers he is due payment on a dayworks basis does not make it so. It depends on the contract and how the clauses deal with variation valuation. If the work can be valued by other means (eg analagous rates) then the client may well do that. The mere recording of work on "dayworks" is simply a record of the resources used - not a proof of entitlement nor an admission of liability.


John

thanx John,

but i what to know even after submitting the day-work sheets for a particlur activty, can the engineer’s quantity surveyor/ contract administrator totally reject the contractor’s claim for payment on the pretext that they are not signed off by the engineer??

also i would like to know the following,
Is the engineer’s quantity surveyor entitled to reduce the hours included on a signed (by the engineer)daywork sheet if he considers them unreasonable or excessive?

thanx in advance.

sam

Sam,

When the contractor submit a claim, the engineer should review all the documents related to this claim (eg. letters, IRs, method statements, etc..), the person in the engineer’s side who should review the cost/qty. related items is the QS.

So the contractor should submitt all the approved documents by the engineer inorder to assist him in the claim.

thanx Karim for your inputs,

but my query is bit different,

scenario 1:
the contractor submits the day-work sheets for an additional/new work, but nobody from the engineer/ architect’s side signs it. but later at the time of payment can the engineer’s QS reject the contractor’s claim totally for that work on the excuse that none from the engineer’s/ architect’s side has signed off the daywork sheets.

Scenario 2:
Is the engineer’s quantity surveyor entitled to reduce the hours included in daywork sheet if he considers them unreasonable or excessive, even if the same has already been signed off by the engineer’s/architect’s representaive.

Sam,

Scenario 1:
If u dealing with an item outside the BOQ, then u should have made the engineer’s representative sign the day work sheets for these items, otherwise the QS can reject your unapproved day work sheets as there is no proof for your allegations.

Scenario 2:
No, the QS can’t change an approved signed day work sheet since that it has been approved by the engineer’s representative, u can raise this issue to the CA in the engineer’s party.

Hi Sam!


Howz evrythng? Heard u after a long time. Here r my comments on the 2 scenarios mentioned by u:

Scenario 1: A Joint record (maintained by the Contractor’s rep & engineer /architect) is the surest way to validation of any claim raised by the contractor. Else the same can be dismissed by the engineer’s QS as nobody from the engineer’s side has validated such claim.

Scenario 2: The engineer’s QS is not entitled to unilaterally reduce the hours included in the day work sheet (even if they seem unreasonable or excessive) if the same bears the engineer’s signature and therefore been validated by the engineer. However, on discussion with the engineer and the contractor’s rep and subsequent mutual agreement (if there had actually been any erroneous recording), the engineer’s QS can take such a step.

Thanx Karim & Devamalya for your valuable comments.

This thread rather seems to be going round in circles if I may say so.

The entitlement to payment on dayworks can only come about if the client has actually pre-ordered the work to be done on dayworks. If the work has not been ordered on dayworks but you as the contractor have unilaterally kept records of the resources, then that is what you have - a contemporary record and nothing more. The very act of keeping contemporary records does not equate to securing a contractual entitlement.

If the client’s staff agrees to pay for the work on dayworks but have refused to sign the daywork record sheets, then they will have put themselves in an impossible situation if they later wish to dispute the record. I have had experience of this, where a refusal to sign sheets by the client’s staff led to the contractor’s unilateral record being accepted as the fact (I believe there is legal precedent on this). However, the client may for whatever reason argue that the work can be valued and paid for not on dayworks but in another way (e.g. analogous rates).

Usually, the client’s staff signs the sheets “RPO” (“record purposes only”) which gives them a convenient escape route if someone queries the hours later. I’m surprised that the people in your case have refused to do even this. Signing such sheets “RPO” is no admission of liability.

As for as the client’s QS arguing that the time spent is excessive, he has to justify such a statement objectively. He cannot cut the hours without any logical basis. Again, he is in no position to dispute the hours after-the-fact, if his colleagues have failed or refused to sign the contemporary record.

I hope the above helps.


Cheers,

John

John got this one spot on.

Read the contract - most standard forms tell you how extra works, etc are to be valued. Usually by reference at first to bill rates or activity schedule rates (if they exist) and then various other methods with dayworks normally the last resort and reserved for the type of work that can’t be valued any other way