Construction Law/Rate Confusion


Respected Sir AA
Apologetically it is being brought into Your kind notice that an email has been received yesterday that the answer of my below stated question has been given by Your Good Self, but no mail showing Your precious advice has been received so far. if convenient would You please resend the answer so as to enable us to proceed further in accordance with the provision of contract precisely.
First of all i am thankful to You for the earlier guidance regarding Escalation.
Now once again i am in cul de sac and need Your precious opinion in accordance with the contract provision for the problem stated below:-
My Question is that we are working on a road project which was started in feb-2013 and will be completed in sep-2015. currently we are working in the pavement structure zone of the road. As per construction drawings and set BOQ 0.15m thick sub-base top treatment of shoulders was proposed, but in view of site situation this proposal is not feasible thus the consultant's concerned proposed PCC 1:2:4 having adequate PCC 1:4:8 underneath as top treatment of shoulders on both sides. this change in scope of work leads for sanction of Variation Order from client/sponsor to regularize payment process.
During the preparation of V.O the inclusion of PCC 1:4:8 & 1:2:4 quantities and rate became a dispute.We pronounce that the quantities against such variation shall be carried out to the Bill No.4a or 4b of the set BOQ because the rates against PCC 1:4:8 & 1:2:4 are already approved. whereas The Consultant's express that as these prescribed quantities therefore the quantities will be incorporated in relevant bill of works i.e Bill No.3 (Surface Course & Pavement) and new rate i.e CSR rate will be applied for processing of payment against such work done.
Please guide me in accordance with the provision of contract which rate shall be applied for payments against the above stated two items?
Anxiously waiting for an early reply please.

dear Mr. Ali Iqtidar Dara,

I am sorry for the inconvenience. All I said was that the Engineer has to give priority to rates already agreed or provided in the Contract for the purposes of VO and here my opinion, therefore, is that he need not drive new rates and use already approved rates for inclusion of PCC 1:4:8 & 1:2:4 in the VO. Hope this is clear now.

Liaqat Hayat

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Liaqat Hayat


I can answer questions based on FIDIC 4 and FIDIC 1999 [design-build] with particular reference to time extension , price adjustment and disputes. I am in particular more inclined for response to points pertaining to how claims should be framed and put up in case of technical or other contractual shortcomings. Regarding procurement matters I have spent over 5 years as procurement specialist for highway authority and dealt with numerous claims and disputes in the capacity of "The Engineer" .

©2016 All rights reserved.