Page 233 - Civil Engineering Project Management, Fourth Edition

213
Variations and claims
that the blinding concrete looks too thin in places and must, as specified, be
a minimum of 100mm thick, and within an hour or so the resident engineer
receives a signed CVI stating ‘We are to thicken up blinding concrete at so-
and-so’. At the bottom of the CVI form is printed ‘and any extra work arising
from the above instruction will be charged’. This sort of spurious claim has,
of course, to be rejected immediately in writing by the resident engineer.
Otherwise, if not contradicted and left on file, it may later be re-submitted by the
contractor as a justifiable ‘claim’ long after the nature of the incident has been
forgotten. If the resident engineer has, however, given a verbal instruction that
justifies a claim for extra payment, he should confirm it in writing with precise
details, and require the contractor to submit a detailed account of his costs
promptly. He should also keep his own records of the work done by the con-
tractor in response to the instruction.

17.7 Sheets submitted ‘for record purposes only’

When a contractor considers some work entitles him to extra payment but the
engineer does not immediately agree, the contractor may suggest that he should
submit daywork sheets for it ‘for record purposes only’ (FRPO sheets), so that
the quantity of alleged extra work can be agreed. This suggestion may seem
reasonable, but it can result in the contractor’s submitting scores (or hundreds)
of FRPO sheets for everything, which he thinks he could claim as an extra. He
can work on the basis that the more sheets he puts in, the greater is his chance
of getting some extra payment, and so he is not over-concerned as to their
accuracy or validity. The resident engineer, however, may not have the staff to
check so many sheets and may consider it a waste of time to check them if many
appear obviously invalid claims.
Therefore, on the first occasion when the contractor suggests submitting
FRPO sheets, the resident engineer should refer the proposal to the engineer
since, once the principle is accepted for one matter, it may be difficult to prevent
submission of FRPO sheets for other matters. Under Clause 53 of the ICE
conditions the contractor is required to give notice of a claim, and after that is
required to submit full details of it. FRPO sheets are not recognized under ICE
conditions, nor does the engineer have to evaluate a claim (if payable at all)
on a dayworks basis if that is what is suggested (see Section 13.8). Hence the
engineer may decide not to agree to submission of FRPO sheets and, if the
contractor persists in sending them, he may advise the resident engineer not
to reply to them, only to file them, putting notes thereon concerning their accur-
acy in case they later form the basis of a properly submitted claim. This avoids
time-consuming correspondence and dispute on the sheets, which might
inadvertently give the impression the contractor has a claim, which is valid
in principle. If, however, dayworks sheets (whether labelled ‘FRPO’ or not) are
submitted in support of some properly notified claim regarding extra work, the
resident engineer must reply if he considers the sheets are invalid or incorrect,