Excavation below formation

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..

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

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

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.

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

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