RICS Construction Journal and BUILDING

APRIL/MAY 2013
1. RICS Construction policy
  1. member-led and this document with E/W/S areas
  2. put forward solutions that Industry, RICS and Government can deliver that will remove blockages and help construction drive economic growth and job creation
  3. OPPINIONS
    1. Where your voice was clearest was that the sector, particularly SMEs, is facing three problems: 1. access to public sector procurement 2. the ability to fund expansion 3. how to benefit from new markets or technological innovations.
  4. RECOMMENDATIONS
    1. the RICS Procurement Working Group will work with industry representatives and the Cabinet Office to produce guidance on how to initiate and manage earlier supply chain engagement, including ear y discussions with SMEs, which the informed client approach requires
    2. industry organisations and the Government Procurement Service (GPS) should create a single portal or database for SMEs to register their accreditation and references, which c n be interrogated by all public bodies
    3. RICS will work with the Construction Industry Council and other partners to develop a simplified pre-qualification questionnaire for use by SMEs, which will then be made publicly available
    4. the construction industry beyond the FTSE 350 should sign up to the Prompt Payment Code managed by the Institute of Credit Management
    5. RICS will work with industry bodies, in particular the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors and the Institution of Civil Engineers, to develop proposals for a mechanism to allow a ‘consortium’ of SMEs to bid and deliver smaller infrastructure projects.
2. Review of case of Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Severfield-Rowen structures Ltd
  1. BACKGROUND
    1. this case relates to steelwork for the Shard in London, the tallest building in Western Europe.
    2. Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (CBUK) was the fabricator and supplier of steelwork for the first nine levels of steelwork, engaged by Severfield-Rowen Structures Ltd (SRS)
    3. primary issues related to alleged delays by CBUK in the provision of steelwork and the impact of these on the progress of SRS in erecting the next 31 levels of steelwork
  2. ISSUES
    1. court considered the following issues
      1. programme
        Difference of opinion on which programme was correct.
        court held that there had been no contractually binding agreement on which programme was applicable
        CBUK must be to fabricate and deliver the steel to enable SRS to comply with its obligations under the Mace (main contractor) programme.
      2. Responsibility for delay in fabrication and delivery
        CBUK’s money claim relating to delays was predicated only on the basis that the June programme was agreed and was in effect binding
        The court held that it was neither and the delay claim therefore failed.
      3. CBUK’s money claim
        This was for outstanding sums due for the original specified work, as varied
        dispute over the value of an edge beam - court determined the final cost
      4. The counterclaim
        SRS’s counterclaim fell broadly into two categories, costs and losses associated with the delay in deliveries by CBUK and defects
    2. OUTCOME CONSIDERATIONS
      1. ensure that the parties are aware of their contractual obligations regarding programme
      2. ensure that complete contemporaneous records of delay and disruption are maintained (as much as possible) – the court rejected large parts of both the claim and counterclaim due to a lack of supporting records
      3. establish the critical path in any delay claim (or counterclaim) – in a delay claim it will not be enough to simply list matters that are claimed to have caused delay, without demonstrating the actual critical effect of each of those delays
      4. remember that in court proceedings contemporaneous written communications become disclosable to the other side – CBUK’s internal correspondence demonstrated that it simply had far too much work in its order book to be able to fully comply with its contractual obligations to SRS
      5. do not rely on questionable sources as the basis for forming expert evidence – the use of an internet ‘chat room’ as a source by CBUK’s QS did not impress the judge.

Siguiente

RICS Construction Journal and BUILDING

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por alison_patey0437 hace más de 11 años