Extension of time claim process in JCT SBC —flowchart. Flowcharts. Maintained •. Found in: Construction. This flowchart illustrates the process for making. It amends the standard JCT SBC Q terms including amendments which are commonly agreed in practice. It also contains drafting notes and links to other. JCT Contracts should be used for construction contracts entered into after 1 October Replaces – SBC/XQ Publisher Information. Sweet and.
|Published (Last):||18 December 2016|
|PDF File Size:||18.72 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An employer must be allowed to decide what changes are made to the contract scope and therefore a contract will stipulate that variations are to be expressly instructed. In other words, the employer may refuse to give a formal instruction, which is the condition precedent to payment under the contract. The risk that change to the statutory regime may necessitate variations is often treated in this way. The change will be deemed to be a variation for jch the contractor is entitled to be 201, even if no formal instruction has been issued.
This approach means that the contractor does not have to wait for a formal instruction before implementing the necessary change.
JCT contracts – Standard form construction contracts – Constructi
It avoids the possibility that the employer refuses to issue the instruction, which can lead to a stand off, with the contractor refusing to proceed. Such an approach to managing variations is only effective where the change in question needs to be made, rather than something that is optional.
After all, if the change is a matter of discretion then it is only right that the employer is given the choice.
But what may be considered a necessary change can be a matter of debate.
Consider the problem arising where unforeseeable site conditions mean that the contractor cannot build in accordance with the planned scope. While the Australian approach of treating changes necessitated by unforeseeable site conditions as deemed variations may seem alien to UK lawyers, all contracts need to grapple with this problem at some level.
Many contracts seek to ensure that the contractor is compensated for the additional costs of unforeseeable conditions without a formal instruction needing to be issued, in order to avoid the impasse that may arise in the meantime. Situations may arise where items of work that 20011 required to be undertaken and shown on the drawings are not included in the bill of quantities.
The process of treating them as deemed variations amounts to a pre-agreed allocation of the risk to the employer and therefore perhaps not surprisingly such provisions are often struck out. This post has analysed the way in which contract procedures can side step the need for a formal instruction by deeming a variation.
This issue can sometimes arise because of uncertainty as to whether or not an instruction has been given.
The next post in this series on variations will consider what form of communication is required for a variation and whether a drawing, email or verbal instruction can, in the right circumstances, be treated as sufficient.
My understanding is that this is a lump sum contract with provision for correcting errors in the BoQ as distinct from a complete re-measurement. This could for example have a bearing on the right to an EoT for a Variation if an anomaly exists between BoQ quantity and tender drawing quantity. Your email address will not be published.
What is a necessary change? Next time This post has analysed the way in which contract procedures can side step the need for a formal instruction by deeming a variation.
Your view would be appreciated. Leave a Jvt Cancel reply Your email address will not be published.