Case Studies

A small carpentry subcontractor, located in the West Country, asked Giles Associates Ltd to compile and submit Extension of Time Claim, plus a subsequent Loss & Expense on their behalf.

 

The sub-Contractor was a 'one man band' who had been working for a large main contractor and was struggling with the receipt of delay notices and contractual letters. These mainly related to delays on site, with the subcontractor being blamed.

 

We began our approach by reviewing the contract between the parties, ensuring that notices had been issued when required. We then reviewed records kept by the sub-contractor to develop programmes that put the contracted programme side by side against how the programme had evolved on site, plus a critical path analysis. We used this information to list the delays caused directly by the main contractor and showcase to them that our client was not to blame for the delays to their work. This robust response and compilation of information led to 90% of the claim being granted.

 

Following the grant of the EoT, the loss and expense claim was compiled and submitted, using the same information. Eventually, after a strongly worded letter threatening adjudication proceedings, the main contractor came to an agreement with the subcontractor.

 

Our proactive approach saw the sub-contractor go from being charged for LAD's and prelim costs to being paid for the delay by the main contractor. Also, by taking this claim off the owner’s hands, he was able to focus on his expertise on running his projects, whilst we achieved the positive outcome.

A drylining sub-contractor required measurement assistance from Giles Associates Ltd as a main contractor was only paying 75% their valuations. This issue was caused when the main contractor claimed to have re-measured the works at 25% less than the initial BoQ that was included in the contract and refused to pay more on this basis.

 

After an initial site visit to see the works, we got into action and compiled a full, irrefutable measure of the drylining package. We developed multiple marked up drawings, further sketches that hadn’t yet been produced and provided photos of the work completed where the drawings weren't clear.

 

The completed measure was submitted in a clear and understandable format to the main contractor, knowing full well that if they disputed these quantities, the matter would be referred to adjudication. However, even after the main contractor had received the measurement, they continued to only pay 75% of the measure on interim valuations.

 

We advised the subcontractor to prepare for adjudication proceedings and on approval, we subsequently issued the main contractor with a Notice of Adjudication. This clearly got their attention, as within 2 days of this being issued, the main contractor responded, finally confirming that they agreed with our measure and quantities and they would be making up the initial payments.

 

Instead of being paid 25% less than the Contract Sum, our client ended up with a Final Account just under 4% more than the Contract Sum, which equated to a swing of nearly £100,000.