Construction Project Management: Procurement and Contracts (Essay Sample)

Construction Project Management: Procurement and Contracts
[Your Names]
[Names of your Institution]
[Date]
Introduction
There are a number of rules and regulations that guides the contract and tendering procedures that should be used by an employer in regard to tender issuance and acceptance. Traditionally, the contractor or supplier with the best overall score can win the tender. Nonetheless, it is not likely that a supplier with the lowest placed tender price automatically wins it because lowest price is not always the best value. Ideally, the best value for money is obtained after considering numerous factors including the economical expenditure and the ability of the supplier meeting certain specified requirements (MCCANLIS 1967).
Tender issuance and acceptance
Maaga’s late tender bid can only be accepted if it is confirmed that there is no suspicion of fraudulent acts by any person. Maaga contractor being a leading firm in the UK, it is certain that they are technically competent and financially suitable and due to these qualities, they have good grounds of winning the tender. However, if the list of approved contractors contains contractors whose financial and technical capability is strong, and have met the specified requirement, they too stand an equal chance of securing the tender. This explains why Sanken contractors won the tender. They quoted a reasonable and fair price that would ensure value for money. If the Trust would have given chance to Maaga contractor, that would be have been illegitimate on the grounds of suspicion of fraudulent acts associated with it. It is likely that the other contractors in the competition were offering the best value for money, though not as low as Maaga firm. Additionally, they were financial and technically capable, and thus, had equal chances of winning the tender provided that they had met set requirements upfront and had handed in their bids in time (MCCANLIS 1967)..
In consideration of the other prospect, Maaga firm cannot have a legal recourse against the employer for not winning the tender despite quoting the lowest price. This is attributed to the knowledge that the lowest price does often match the best value for money. In the essence, what matters is the best value which is determined by the ability of the contractor to meet to specified requirements and more so, quote a fair price that would be economical during service delivery. In as much as Maaga may have had the ability to match this, it missed it out because they did not submit their bid in time. Maaga’s late quotation would have been considered if and only if the other approved contractors did not meet the technical and financial requirements ahead of time. Sanken met all the above requirements and that is why they were given chance (LUPTON 2011).
Time extension
Sanken request for time extension during the construction period is in order regarding the JCT SBC/Q 2011 tutelage. Sanken possesses a site that a small bit of the work regarding laying of the pile foundation had commenced by a specialized piling contractor-Elison contractor. Later, Sanken discovers that the pile caps were not of correct design and size as per the design drawing requirements. The contractor takes the right step by informing the employer about the anomaly in writing. This is according to clause 2.14 that suggests that any form of errors, omissions, and inadequacies should be communicated to the contract administrator in a detailed notice, who, in return is expected to issue instructions regarding the same. The contractor envisages this as an error and inadequacy and goes ahead to replace the pile caps with new pile caps which interfere with its budget in regard to resources and time. The contractor requests for time extension as it pours concrete over two stages with a three day respite in between the stages (LUPTON 2011).
It is, therefore, in order for Sanken to request for time extension since it encounters a relevant event that causes delay of its operations. This kind of delay is linked to the employer since Metropolitan Electricals had initially contracted Elison to lay pile caps before Sanken took possession of the site. Elison did not construct pile caps to the correct specification and that is why Sanken embark in the repiling exercise which costs them time and strain their resources. The contractor runs ahead and serves the contract administrator with a written notice upfront about the anticipated delay because of laying new pile caps. Though carpeting with new piles was not part of the contact, Sanken expedite on this job so that it can deliver quality job at the end.
This provision of time extension is significant to both the employer and the contractor since it determines who is to bear the loss or if the loss incurred should be shared. For this matter, Metropolitan Electricals have caused the delay, though indirectly. If they would have allowed Sanken to carry out the whole exercise starting from construction of piling foundation to the completion of all contractual activities, then there would be no complaints. Metropolitan Electricals, in this case, is considered to have delayed the contractor and should, therefore, bear these losses and more so, be ready to reimburse Sanken for the damages incurred. Nonchalantly, Sanken request for time extension is clever since it aspires to evade the liquidation damages that the employer may charge it (LUPTON 2011).
Sanken contractors are entitled to installation of customer lifts according to the contractual agreement. This job, which is scheduled to be done by a certain subcontractor, is hampered because of poor measurements of the lift shaft dimensions resulting to incorrect size that stalls their installation. Sanken later discovers that the poor interpretation in the design drawings is the cause of all this. Nonetheless, the contract administrator issues an instruction to rectify this which is in order with the clause 2.12 to enable the contactor to finish its job within a reasonable time. Sanken, therefore, invests its seven days in the correction of this inadequacy. This, however, are not good grounds for Sanken to request for compensation of additional expenses incurred because this is considered as a variation of job that has been caused by an error in the design of lifts shaft dimension and should not, in any way lead to the addition of the contract sum as per JCT clause 2.17 provision. The clause states that any kind of modification, correction or alteration should be deciphered as variation.
On the other hand, Sanken have good grounds of launching a time extension claim. The contractor took seven days to rectify the mess and consequently, culminating to unplanned delay. Sanken had to deviate from its normal program in order to rectify this anomaly. In as much as the delay was neither caused by the employer or the contractor, it is considered as a neutral event whose damages should be shared. It is, therefore, in order for the contract administrator to issue a positive instruction regarding time extension so that Sanken can bounce back to its master program and complete the job as per the contractual requirement.
When the construction is fifty percent away from completion, the contract administrator issues an instruction for testing which is not in resonance with the original contract. Even though no anomalies are found, Sanken thinks that much time and resources are invested in the same and logs a compensation call on top of another time extension. According to the contractor, testing in some way orchestrates the delay in the construction of the new structure. Moreover, the testing activity can be deciphered as a relevant event as stipulated in sub-clauses 2.29.1 to 2.29.7 and can be used to justify a time extension. This move by Sanken is clever because the testing provision is not encompassed in the original contract. Testing can, therefore, serve as huge impedance towards Sanken’s targets and it could use this ground to request for the loss and damages incurred as a result of this. Additional time should be granted by the contract administrator because this delay is caused by the employer and he should be ready to bear the damages which are in cy...