Council tree felling...

[onewheeldave 22]

Your post shows a lack of understanding. The fact that the contractor makes a profit does not mean they have to assume all risk. The amount of cost they may incur as a consquence of holding the risk is the important thing.

 

The "quite a lot of details" you claim to know does not extend to the clauses for late delivery, the original procurement strategy and the original budget, which is what I made reference to.

 

As for the statement made by the councillor, I would hazard a guess that he was talking about the Contractor's ability to recover costs/damages for delays outside of their control, not penalties.

 

This discussion actually started as a poster stated that they believed Amey were purposefully seeking to delay works to claim penalties from the council.

i.e. benefit from their own breach via a penalty clause in the contract. I find this highly unlikely.

I don't think his post shows any lack of understanding- it's very focused and concise, especially this part-

We have seen part of the contract, it's not my fault if you've failed to look. It's been partly redacted, not entirely. The council have also made numerous statements about it, including the fact that they have entirely no control over the use of the engineering solutions regarding trees and that they cannot stop Amey cutting down any tree it wishes, no matter what the arborists say.

They have also stated that the council will suffer financial penalties if Amey misses a target, they've said it, you can't pretend it didn't happen.

 

Why don't you address those points Makapaka? They clearly indicate that there are serious issues with this contract.

[Guest makapaka]

I don't think his post shows any lack of understanding- it's very focused and concise, especially this part-

 

 

Why don't you address those points Makapaka? They clearly indicate that there are serious issues with this contract.

 

I already have in the main if you read my previous posts.

 

The poster also raised issues which I’ve not called into question - presumably because there is an assumption that I am seeking to defend a particularly party which I’m not.

 

I’ve just pointed out what I think are inaccuracies in some posters comments / arguments.

 

The comments regarding risk / profit do seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how risk is managed / costed into building projects but maybe that’s just how it came across.

[Cyclone 10]

Well, one of us shows a lack of understanding, but then again one of us thought that we hadn't seen any details of the contract...

Your guesses about the councillors comments don't explain them in the slightest.

Why would Amey be able to reclaim damages for IT NOT COMPLETING work it's contractually obliged to do? You appear to be thinking about this backwards. Should Amey be delayed by (for example, the weather), then Amey is in breach of the agreed contract. Yet the councillor says that the council will have to pay Amey... For it's failure to complete.

Does that sound even remotely equitable?

 

Perhaps in the next contract I form, I'll suggest a clause that has a company pay me extra if I fail to deliver the work I'm agreeing to, by the agreed date. I can imagine that they'll jump at the chance.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Cyclone
Removed apostrophe

[Guest makapaka]

Well, one of us shows a lack of understanding, but then again one of us thought that we hadn't seen any details of the contract...

You're guesses about the councillors comments don't explain them in the slightest.

Why would Amey be able to reclaim damages for IT NOT COMPLETING work it's contractually obliged to do? You appear to be thinking about this backwards. Should Amey be delayed by (for example, the weather), then Amey is in breach of the agreed contract. Yet the councillor says that the council will have to pay Amey... For it's failure to complete.

Does that sound even remotely equitable?

 

Perhaps in the next contract I form, I'll suggest a clause that has a company pay me extra if I fail to deliver the work I'm agreeing to, by the agreed date. I can imagine that they'll jump at the chance.

 

You're just demonstrating a further lack of understanding.

 

It's perfectly normal for a contractor to have the ability to recover costs arising from delays outside of it's control, not generally for weather, but for a number of of other heads.

 

Using your own example - what if you rented specific equipment to deliver the work you have agreed to do, for a fixed price, and that work is reliant on you receiving a document from your client in January.

 

The client sends it you in December, despite telling you throughout the year to not return the hired equipment because the arrival of the document is imminent.

 

You have had the equipment on hire for 12 months whilst being unable to complete the works. Would you expect that additional hire cost to form part of your original price?

Edited December 20, 2017 by makapaka

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

None of us knows what the Contract says nor whether it does or doesn't contain a penalty clause.

So, er, what's the discussion going to achieve?

[lottiecass 17]

Is SCC responsible for the delays in tree felling? or is it down to amey?

[Guest makapaka]

None of us knows what the Contract says nor whether it does or doesn't contain a penalty clause.

So, er, what's the discussion going to achieve?

 

Nothing really it was just a discussion.

[neeeeeeeeeek 10]

Is SCC responsible for the delays in tree felling? or is it down to amey?

 

In the contract Amey are responsible for all delays caused by protestors, there would be no extra cost to the council, Amey have to take the hit and do the work at their expense. The problems arose when the council set up an independent tree panel which nobody including the protestors wanted. This panel cost a lot of cash and took up extra time but these delays were caused by the council. The council then ignored at least 80% of the panels recommendations proving it was all a farce in the first place. That's how understand it.

[hackey lad 3,976]

In the contract Amey are responsible for all delays caused by protestors, there would be no extra cost to the council, Amey have to take the hit and do the work at their expense. The problems arose when the council set up an independent tree panel which nobody including the protestors wanted. This panel cost a lot of cash and took up extra time but these delays were caused by the council. The council then ignored at least 80% of the panels recommendations proving it was all a farce in the first place. That's how understand it.

 

Makapaka will say you are wrong, and misunderstood it

[Guest makapaka]

Makapaka will say you are wrong, and misunderstood it

 

How could I do that - I’ve no idea if what they’re saying is true or false.

[hackey lad 3,976]

How could I do that - I’ve no idea if what they’re saying is true or false.

 

But you post about contracts as if you have a good knowledge of how they work . surely you should know if the poster was right or wrong

[Guest makapaka]

But you post about contracts as if you have a good knowledge of how they work . surely you should know if the poster was right or wrong

 

I don’t know the circumstances of this contract though which is why I’ve not suggested otherwise.

 

I was just pointing out how some scenarios play out and that it can be wrong to make certain assumptions.