Construction Law/Pleriminary items


Dear Florin.

My name is George and I am an Engineer in a water supply project. I narate an issue in a contract we are managing  and seek for you opinion.

BoQ item in contention is:
Provide alternative transport to  Engineers
staff before the acquisition of Item A221.1
and A221.2 above........................       month ..   1

The contractor demands payment for a total of eight (8) months, this being the period over which It provided the alternative transport as spelt out in item A221.5 in the Bill of Quantities. Whereas the Contract specified one (1) month period, the Contractor maintained the facility for an extra Seven (7) months before it could deliver the project vehicles as specified in BoQ item A221.1 and A221.2.

Causes of delay in delivering the vehicles.
The Contractor cites delay in approval Its specifications for the Vehicles as the cause of delay in delivery of the same.
1.   The Contractor allegedly put a request for approval of the Vehicle specifications in September 2013, while approval was given in December, 2013 (vide letter Ref: WS 519/Water Resources/MLD/LOT1/2013 12 6 and dated 6th December, 2013).
2.   The contractor goes ahead to allege that it takes about three (3) months for a vehicle to be delivered. This It alleges that is a norm and thus does not give any explanation on the same.
3.   Further the Contractor claims that, whereas one of the vehicles it had ordered arrived home (supposedly Kenya), over the month of March 2014 (no date has been given), extra works were ordered on the vehicle by the Client. The ordered works are cited as being:- (1) Respraying the vehicle with Clients corporate color(s), and (2) Writings on the vehicle, It was only delivered to site on 16th April, 2014.

Note: The Contractor did not at any tine send a reminder to the Client for his specifications to be approved

My opinion.

1.Because the Contractor chose not to send a reminder for his quotation to be approved, he should not be asking for any extra payment (based on the delay in approval) as the liability rests with him. I assume he should assumed the lack of approval being sent to him in letter could have meant the Clients approval.

2. If he can show that it actually takes 3 months to deliver a vehicle to Kenya, an extra two months could be considered above the 1 month asked for in the Contract (three months taken to deliver vehicle minus one month in Contract)

Do you think my opinion on the above is right?
Yours faithfully


Dear George,

Thank you for your question and provided details.

As you indicate a BoQ, I understand it is a Contract based on re-measurable quantities, if FIDIC, probably a Red or Pink Book.

In which case, Contractor is paid for what he has executed/ delivered.

Hence, you have a unit price for that item in the BoQ, but just the quantity is different.

The Contractor has delivered the car(s) and you have benefitted of. Should you have considered it is not in line with the Contract, you should as well decline using the provided alternative, after that first month.

Hence, keep it straight and simple and always think how you can make things go forward. A service/ work has been provided, was accepted, hence must be paid.

You will have plenty of other things to argue about, don't clutch on such minor issue.

Good luck!  

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts




Questions related to Civil Engineering Contracts, using FIDIC or other Conditions of Contract, concerning Procurement procedures and documents (pre-qualification, tendering and contracting) and Services/ Works Contracts implementation matters including Determinations, Payments, Time Extensions, VOs, Claims/Disputes. Additionally, questions related to dealing with International Financing Institutions. Can also answer questions in Romanian. Can not answer improperly formulated questions.


Over 20 years of experience in the field of design, works supervision, construction, management of aid funds and technical assistance for various types of contracts implementation, including severe conflictual contractual situations leading to Claims and disputes. Claims/ Contract management, Disputes adjudication, Arbitration.

Member of Romanian Professional Association of Roads and Bridges; Listed on President's List of Adjudicators of Romanian Association of Consulting Engineers Former member of the Disputes Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) of United States – nominee on DRBF President’s Disputes Board Members List and of DRBF Chapter for Eastern Europe Former member of Polish Association of Consulting Engineers (SIDiR) – nominee on SIDiR President’s Disputes Board Members National List Member of “” volunteers pool Member of the "Constructions Disputes Resolution Services” International Panel of Construction ADR Specialists" of United States

- Graduate in 1994 the Construction Institute - Graduate of several FIDIC,Procurement and other courses - Graduate of first Disputes Board Members Mentoring Scheme ( - FIDIC Accredited Adjudicator

Past/Present Clients
- Several State organisations/Ministries , such as Ministry of Transport, National Admistration of Roads, Ministry of Regional Development (former Ministry of European Integration), Public Works and Housing, Central Contracting and Financing Unit in Romania and also in Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia - Numerous Western based private consultancy companies - full CV and other relevant information available at

©2016 All rights reserved.