I was delighted to read in the July/August issue of CES a letter from my old friend and close contemporary, David Carrick. I too started reminiscing as a result of his comments and one particular story from my distant past as a contractor’s QS made me wonder how certain aspects of what was the stock-in-trade of the QS are dealt with these days.
From the time of the first monthly valuation onwards, this was disputed by the client’s QS.On a large road improvement job just south of Birmingham – which we started in 1970 – there was a BoQ item for general site clearance that had a very small quantity and therefore an enormous unit rate thanks to the belief of the tendering team that the correct quantity on re-measure would be the distance between the side boundary fences (Type NPR 51, I seem to recall) multiplied by the total chainage, less any specific areas covered by items of demolition, tree removal etc.
I don’t recall the stated item coverage of the method of measurement we used in those days but it was the last major job I worked on that was not only in old money but in Imperial units.
From the time of the first monthly valuation onwards, this was disputed by the client’s QS and it developed into a major claim as the site clearance progressed.
My hope is that mundane things like measurement are dealt with by computer these days and that the item coverage is clear enough in the method of measurement to avoid ambiguity.
If that is so, what does the modern-day site QS find to do after having memorised all the three letter acronyms that proliferate and which were brilliantly lampooned by our current president in the same issue?
Graham Woodall FCInstCES Past President