LOSS AND EXPENSE  – SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED

 

 

 

Is a contractor right  to refuse the sub-contractor loss and expense because  the architect has refused to certify loss and expense under the main contract?

Under standard forms such as Dom/1, this approach is invalid.    The contractor may be in default on the  main contract, with no entitlement. The sub-contractor may well be genuinely entitled under the sub-contract.  Beware of  bespoke conditions and amendments  to standard forms limiting  sub-contractors’ entitlements to the contractor’s recovery  under  the main contract.

 

 

What if the main reason for delay is lack of building progress and/or access?

Under most standard forms, the sub-contractor would have entitlements due to the “act, omission or default” of the contractor.  Again, beware contracts which omit such provisions. 

 

 

Clients and contractors usually want to base prolongation costs (ie job over-run) on the allowances made in the sub-contractor’s tender. Is this correct?

Under  Dom/1, where elements of a priced  “prelims” bill are directly affected by variations, then these elements should be adjusted accordingly. So in the case of delays caused by variations it may be appropriate to use the prelims bill, if one exists. In most other cases, the correct approach is to value site establishment, staff and plant on the basis of actual costs properly incurred as a result of the delay.

 

 

At what point in the programme should costs of prolongation be valued?

The assessment should be made at the point where the delay took place. This may  involve a series of  calculations for varying periods of delay  at differing points in the progress of the works.   It is more accurate and fairer than the typical approach of valuing the “tail end” over-run. 

 

 

What is meant by “prelims thickening”?

This term refers to  increase in weekly involvement of management, technical and supervisory  resources, caused by volume of variations or increased difficulties imposed upon the programme. This often happens when a planned “tail end”  run down becomes  a “grandstand finish”.   If the sub-contractor has  to retain or  introduce additional engineers, charge-hands etc, he should advise the contractor at the time, explaining the reasons and stating his intention to seek financial compensation.  An effective way of valuing “thickening” is by a histogram showing weekly details of planned and actual “prelims” resources, plus a “job description” for each person involved.  This will be helped by maintenance of a daily site register showing  all persons, including office staff.

 

 

What is the best way of claiming for “off site” overheads and staff due to prolongation?

The highest figure is usually achieved by use of a formula approach (eg Hudson or Emden). This  is hard to prove, and involves opening up the claimant’s company accounts, proving  tenders turned away, and establishing actual loss of revenue.  A better approach is to ensure that all off-site managers and staff allocate their time to individual projects (ie by timesheets). This time can then be “job costed”  every week, and readily proved as a genuine cost.  This method has the added benefit of reducing the residual percentage for fixed overheads (eg office  lease, rates, heat and light etc). This latter  can then be added as a percentage on the bottom line.

 

 

Is it true that no sub-contractor should ever have to lose money when carrying out a variation?

No.  The wording of most contracts is such that, even when the character and conditions of the works have changed, some  regard must still be had to  bill rates. If these bill rates were “low”, this will influence the final account rates.

 

 

What is meant by “time at large” and does it entitle a sub-contractor to revise his rates?

Time may arguably be set at large when an act of prevention by the client or contractor causes delay to completion, and the contract contains no specific mechanism for  revision of the completion date. A typical example occurs in bespoke contracts where the contractor deliberately omits  provision for extension due to his own “act, omission or default”. Another case  might  be where a client or contractor failed to revise the completion date within the period stipulated in the contract.  The sub-contractor would then have to complete in a “reasonable time”.  Contrary to the popular myth, the sub-contractor is not released from his bill rates.

 

 

What is the best way to safeguard entitlements to time and money?

The best safeguard is to give prompt written notice of all delays and costs as the likelihood becomes apparent, and to maintain good records.  Keep the client or contractor informed at all times, and maintain a proactive attitude.

 

 

 

Home

 

Back to Jack Russell column.

 

John Russell  

 Contracts and Training Consultant

 Cheshire CW4 7DP

Tel:  07770 986444 

Email: swsubbie@globalnet.co.uk

 

 

 

WEB SITE:       jrconsultant.co.uk

 

ARTICLE NO 10

DATED 3/8/02

FOR END OF AUGUST 2002  “ELECTRICAL TIMES”