In response to Mr Chalmers’ letter (Problem solved, QS News, 12 August), there was a recent article by Osborne Clarke that addressed the Henry Boot v Althsom case and the dispute that arose over the evaluation of a unit measure of sheet piling.

The summary of the dispute was that the lump sum for the piling for an area of the works was divided by the area of the piling referred, albeit erroneously, in the B of Q description for a specific section of the works. This provided a rate per m2 to be applied to some new works, which were a true variation.

The problem was that the scope of the lump sum referred in reality to two areas, A & B, though the bill description mentioned only area A giving an artificially high unit rate that was applied to the variation by using only the actual area of piling in area A. The client claimed foul but ultimately lost.

Now, the term B of Q is used in the reporting of the case, but from the dispute it is apparent that the B of Q appears to be no more than a list of items, piling being a lump sum, hence the pro rata approach to the establishing of a rate. So not truly a B of Q. There is an error in the description but just think how much simpler and more cost efficient it would have been if the client had commissioned, or insisted on a proper B of Q. A unit rate would have been defined and considerably less scope for a dispute over the evaluation of the variation. I bet Althsom spent a lot more on legal fees defending the claim than they would have on having proper a B of Q prepared.

The defence rests.

David Forster, via email

Source

QS News