Measurement method for payment 6

[Thang Nguyen]

Hi Everyone,
I have a question related to the measurement method in my project as follows:
In our preamble of the Bill of Quantities statement measurement method for piling work as:
“Measurement of piling shall be by the length of piles installed from the underside of the structure reinforced concrete base to the level of pile toes shown on the Drawings or required by the Specification.”
In the design drawings shown toe’s level and estimated pile penetration length from cut-off level to pile toe; After driving the test piles and static load test, the pile toe’s level and pile penetration length are revised (shorten); But in the mass piles pressing, the actual pile toe level was shallower, pile penetration length is shortened again, and the length of piles to be cut off was more.
The question is, in this case, the length of piles to be measured for payment is: option 1. up to the revised pile’s toe level after pile testing or option 2. the actual recorded during mass pile pressing. As my understanding option 1 will be applied, but the project engineer measured it as option 2.
Please kindly support me with your opinions
Thank you so much!

 

[dik]

Depends on how the contract was written, and if there are any ambiguities. Does your firm have a contract administrator or someone that is skilled in contracts. Beyond that, you should get legal opinion.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[HTURKAK]

I will suggest you to look to the details of the contract. The unit rates should be valid for the quantities defined in the BOQ with a deviation ( say 10 % ).

In case of the measured quantity differs more than defined deviation, the contractor should have the right to adopt new unit rates. In this case, (trade is pile driving )the reduced quantity , the amount of pile material will reduce with the same proportion ( for steel driven pile and for bored pile ) , but the workmanship will not change too much the mobilisation/ demob of the piling rig will be the same etc..

 

[dhengr]

Thang Nguyen:
If the GC bought 40’ long piles per your original plan directions (the elevations shown on the plans), but now only needs 30’ long piles because of the changes, he should probably not have to absorb the cost for all that extra unusable piling. Alternatively, his price would/should have assumed driving a 40’ pile and now only has to drive a 30’ pile, so he owes someone that driving savings. All else should still be about the same. This probably calls for a bit of negotiation btwn. the parties.

 

[1503-44]

He still bought 40ft piles according to requirements in effect at the time.
What do you thing the contractor can do with cut off pieces of piles? Sell them on E-Bay?

 

[BridgeSmith]

Based on what's quoted, unless amended in the "Specification" referred to, the contractor would expect to get paid for the plan length on the drawings. Unless this is a huge job, the mobilization cost to get the pile-driving rig on-site is a fairly substantial chunk of the cost. If the expected and shown driving depth is 40', and you try to pay the contractor for 30', the contractor would likely sue, and would have a good chance of winning.

Our plans state very clearly that the depths shown and the estimated quantities are estimates only, and they will get paid for the length installed (plus whatever the contract price is for a pile splice for any pile where the driven length exceeds the plan length).

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[Thang Nguyen]

I understand that rule of payment like a lumpsum payment with the data shown on the design drawings. In any case, base on the actual site condition the pile toe can be shallower or deeper than in the drawings but the payment will be unchange. Am I right?

 

[BridgeSmith]

A Lump Sum bid item would be a different case, where the contractor would get paid a set amount, theoretically regardless of the depth they actually drive. We would never do that for driven piles, since we risk paying too much if they end up shallower, and risk getting sued for severely underestimating the depth if they go very far over. Based on what you quoted, it was not bid as a lump sum item, but they are to be paid for piling "the level of pile toes shown on the Drawings". Of course it also says they are to be paid for "the length of piles installed", which will be interpreted by the contractor as 'whichever is longer', and it would be difficult to defend another interpretation in court.

Bottom line is unless you want to end up in court, and likely lose, you'll either need to 1) pay the contractor for the length shown on the plans, or 2) negotiate with them for some reduction based on the reduction in labor and materials for the shallower depth. I wouldn't expect alot. As I said, a big chunk of the cost (typically $5000 to $10,000 around here) is the mobilization to get the equipment on-site. The difference in labor to drive a pile 30' vs. 40' isn't much at all, usually just 30 minutes or so of standing there watching the hammer work. Material cost for the steel piling is less than $1 per pound, assuming they have sufficient length pieces to return to the supplier. As scrap, it's worth about 8 cents per pound.

Unless this is a huge job, your least-cost option is most likely to just pay them for the plan quantity.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[dik]

Often with contracts based on unit rates, there is usually an 'add' value and a 'subtract' value. For a lump sum contract, I would suggest that he gets paid for the length stipulated... he might have a valid claim in the cost to remove the parts that are not needed...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik