6th June 2006, 01:59 PM
I am referring to construction proper, as opposed to civil engineering, where different forms of contract are used - principally the JCT Forms. I am not familiar with highways contracts but I would assume that if risk is borne by the contractor, and thus the contract becomes at least in part a speculative venture, the potential rewards (and tenders) are correspondingly higher - other wise they wouldn't do it. Alternatively, would they be, in very crude terms, similar to a Design and Buld contract? In this case a contractor builds to his Contractors Proposals tendered against Employers Requirements, and while the works are not measured in the sense of a BQ, defined work is done for a defined fee (in theory - its a much abused form of contract). But there is no risk in the sense that are using it.
In construction, that is building construction, a contractor carries no risk other than his own management abilities - and to a very limited extent the weather. This is because the work is measured. If 2 million bricks are needed instead of the measured 1 million, he gets paid for the extra million. If he used 2 million because he wasted a million, he doesn't get paid for them.
I see that the ICE CofC contain provisions for "measured" work. What I am driving at however is that I gather from these forums that it is common to tender on a lump sum basis against vague or unmeasured unquantities, e.g one post hole or 200, and the contractor bears the risk. If I have got the wrong end of the stick I apologize, and will get my coat. I'm off to Spain tomorrow anyway - hope Hosty hasn't drunk it dry!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
In construction, that is building construction, a contractor carries no risk other than his own management abilities - and to a very limited extent the weather. This is because the work is measured. If 2 million bricks are needed instead of the measured 1 million, he gets paid for the extra million. If he used 2 million because he wasted a million, he doesn't get paid for them.
I see that the ICE CofC contain provisions for "measured" work. What I am driving at however is that I gather from these forums that it is common to tender on a lump sum basis against vague or unmeasured unquantities, e.g one post hole or 200, and the contractor bears the risk. If I have got the wrong end of the stick I apologize, and will get my coat. I'm off to Spain tomorrow anyway - hope Hosty hasn't drunk it dry!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.