UKC

Got stung Part 2.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 AP Melbourne 07 Oct 2018

Many thanks all for your interest.

Ridge was spot-on in the first part that there was an incorrect scope item I pointed out so advised the client in writing and told them I'd allowed $9k for doing it correctly.

This is the $9k they crunched me on.

To explain: There's a soffit [overhang] - underneath which I'm to install a monorail for rope access operators to connect to via a window at either end, connect ropes to the trolleys and climb out onto. The thing is the monorail snakes in & out all the way along its 140m length. The spec called up cast in ferrules [about 120] into the slab but there's no way in the world these can be placed with 1mm tolerance to line up with our pre-fabricated monorail supports. Hence I improved the spec by pricing for inverted, cast in 400mm long channels for installation tolerance. Except they aren't stocked in marine grade 316 stainless steel in Australia and am having them made overseas and flown in.

As was questioned in part 1: Why not do it to spec and when it goes wrong it's the client's problem? Well, I don't operate that way and contractually it'd be on me to rectify too.

'The last laugh' I alluded to though is that this $9k [being $6k + 50% mark up] I actually priced at four times higher to cover my back which means our nett result is not a bottom line loss rather a reduced 'cream on top' result.

Ahh friends, its a game contracting and we all play it. And I've not lost out yet.... and don't intend to.

Over & out on this one,

Thanks heaps,

Andy P.

 

 

 

1
 Philip 07 Oct 2018
In reply to AP Melbourne:

Your mistake was committing to fabrication (A$80k?)  without their signature on the contact, or (it is hard to follow your language) they did sign, in which case what were their grounds for querying the price? Sounds like one for the lawyers, that's why you have a contract.

For what it's worth, if you get provided with a defective contract, you should send them corrections to reissue it.

1
 JLS 07 Oct 2018
In reply to AP Melbourne:

I'm guessing you are placing the cast-in channels perpendicular to the monorail in order to have tolerance in the transverse direction. How are you getting tolerance in the longitudinal direction? Slotted holes on the monorail plates offered to the channel? Are the channels the "toothed" type to hold the bolts in the desired position? Again, do any slotted holes have toothed plates and washers.

Just curious. Not sure what lateral forces the connections need to be designed for...

OP AP Melbourne 07 Oct 2018
In reply to both Phillip & JLS:

Ta,

To clarify; We shook hands and I had an email via our Aconex web portal confirming API had been awarded the subcontract. The builder let many contracts that week across all disciplines [joinery, carpentry, hydraulics etc etc] but the actual document takes several weeks to be tailored. I then have to check them rigorously before I put up to my Director for signing.

There was one a few years ago [and remember we're talking rope access here] that the 960 toilet seats were to be option b and the carpets colours scheme d.

JLS. 100% correct, the BOMAC Altrac rails have slots along their entire length so full adjustment longitudinally and the bkts shall have slotted holes as well. Yep, the cast in channels need placing perpendicular to the [yet-to-be] connected rail underneath so we have lateral tolerance too. That's why I said 120 cast in ferrules were unbuildable coz if a single one is even half a mm out we'd be stuck.

The client maintained ferrules were the specification despite totally agreeing they were unworkable and flatly refused my AU$9k.

However: Being a bit of a due diligence stickler of a Manager of my dept; I had over $30,000.00 in just for that $9k bit.

Its all down to the site crew now to make it happen...........

Cheers,

Andy.

 daWalt 08 Oct 2018
In reply to AP Melbourne:

not impossible at all, you need your supports fixed to the ferrules so your lateral channel would have been external to the conc. As an experienced professional, you would know this when designing and costing the job. The fact that you've got your fixings cast-in rather than externally fixed is a saving on your part.

there you go - that's how I'd see your client (or client's bean counting QS) fending off your poxy argument. you didn't get stung at all. 

all in the right spirit


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...