There is a minor conflict for an item in the Works Information where one document states a completely different (and lower quality) product than all the rest of the Works Information. The Bill references the correct specifications and it it has been priced accordingly by the Contractor.
The discrepancy has come to light and the Contractor is now claiming that they priced the lower specification item based on the rogue description.
Additionally, it is the lower quality item that has been installed.
I have sympathy with the Contractor as the ambiguity is the designer’s responsibility, however, the Architect is quoting clause 60.7 (this is an NEC3, Option B contract) and saying that as the lower quality item has been installed, although suitable, they expect a saving.
Contractor is referencing their opinion that under the contract, any errors or ambiguity in the Works Information is the Designers risk.
The discrepancy has come to light and the Contractor is now claiming that they priced the lower specification item based on the rogue description.
Additionally, it is the lower quality item that has been installed.
I have sympathy with the Contractor as the ambiguity is the designer’s responsibility, however, the Architect is quoting clause 60.7 (this is an NEC3, Option B contract) and saying that as the lower quality item has been installed, although suitable, they expect a saving.
Contractor is referencing their opinion that under the contract, any errors or ambiguity in the Works Information is the Designers risk.