Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Building WOrk Quotation
11 Answers
We are nearly finished adding an extension to our house and have received an invoice from our builder.
We have not changed any of the building dimensions since the quote was prepared, but the builder is trying to charge us for what he calls "additional roof area".
If he has underpriced his original quote surely that is his error or the surveyors error, but our architect tells us the builder is allowed to claim for the materials and work actually done. To complicate things further, although any dimensions and angles given in the architects drawings appear to be correct, VISUALLY the roof area looks wrong on the drawings and we wonder if the surveyor has scaled the drawings to price the roof area, when it states clearly on the drawings "do not scale"
We argue that we don't have "additional roof area" as we haven't changed the size or shape of the building from what was originally required.
To put this in context, the "additional roof area" being claimed is approximately one third of the total roof area so this is a significant deviation.
Where do we stand from a legal perspective?
We have not changed any of the building dimensions since the quote was prepared, but the builder is trying to charge us for what he calls "additional roof area".
If he has underpriced his original quote surely that is his error or the surveyors error, but our architect tells us the builder is allowed to claim for the materials and work actually done. To complicate things further, although any dimensions and angles given in the architects drawings appear to be correct, VISUALLY the roof area looks wrong on the drawings and we wonder if the surveyor has scaled the drawings to price the roof area, when it states clearly on the drawings "do not scale"
We argue that we don't have "additional roof area" as we haven't changed the size or shape of the building from what was originally required.
To put this in context, the "additional roof area" being claimed is approximately one third of the total roof area so this is a significant deviation.
Where do we stand from a legal perspective?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Fair-Stumped. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You really need to ask your Builder *exactly* what he quoted for and how he arrived at the figures. One third is a heck of an error to make in a 'take-off'.
All Architects plans carry the instruction *not* to scale off the drawing, and they also usually instruct the Contractor to contact the Architect in the case of discrepancies between the drawing and 'on-site' conditions.
All Architects plans carry the instruction *not* to scale off the drawing, and they also usually instruct the Contractor to contact the Architect in the case of discrepancies between the drawing and 'on-site' conditions.
Agree with JtH.
One-third is serious mistake to make - and he made have made the mistake for one (or both) of the following reasons:
1) The pitch of the roof is drawn wrong on the drawings (too shallow) and the reality is that the actual trusses used are taller than those shown on the drawing (there are minimum pitch angles for tiles of different types). This seems an unlikely explanation, though it might explain why your drawings look wrong. In any event, the builder should have flagged this up before now.
2) the builder has not allowed enough for the overlap between successive tiles rows. Again, the required overlap depends on the tiles and this is not something that the client or the architechural technician shoyuld have to worry about - a competent builder knows how to work this out when pricing the roof from the drawings.
One-third is serious mistake to make - and he made have made the mistake for one (or both) of the following reasons:
1) The pitch of the roof is drawn wrong on the drawings (too shallow) and the reality is that the actual trusses used are taller than those shown on the drawing (there are minimum pitch angles for tiles of different types). This seems an unlikely explanation, though it might explain why your drawings look wrong. In any event, the builder should have flagged this up before now.
2) the builder has not allowed enough for the overlap between successive tiles rows. Again, the required overlap depends on the tiles and this is not something that the client or the architechural technician shoyuld have to worry about - a competent builder knows how to work this out when pricing the roof from the drawings.
Joko, both the builder and architect were recommended to us, and we're really pleased with how the actual work has turned out. We just don't feel that we should be liable to pay for "additional roof area" because we haven't increased the size of the building.
Our argument is that if the builder has underestimated his costs in the quote, then that's just tough on him, but the architect says that under the "Standard Method of Measurement" system he is allowed to re-measure the work on site and get paid for what he has actually done. Fine, if we had asked him to do more than was originally asked for, but we haven't increased the building size or shape in any way.
Our argument is that if the builder has underestimated his costs in the quote, then that's just tough on him, but the architect says that under the "Standard Method of Measurement" system he is allowed to re-measure the work on site and get paid for what he has actually done. Fine, if we had asked him to do more than was originally asked for, but we haven't increased the building size or shape in any way.
FS
I hope that JtH or The Builder gets to this one because they both have far more practical experience than I have.
This is what RICS say about SMM: "SMM is used throughout the world by quantity surveyors and building surveyors. It represents a consistent method for measuring building works and good practice. This key source is also an essential resource for trainees and students studying surveying".
I think this is a crass explanation. Have you engaged the architect to oversee the build for a fee? - or did his/her commission cease with the drawings with you doing the contract administration with the builder?
If you think my explanation 1) is correct, you need to check it by measurement (roughly to within 100mm anyway) because the plans should not have been adjusted in this way without your agreement as the client.
Joists can be produced to any dimension (they are a custom-made item) so that is not an 'acceptable' excuse.
More questions I'm afraid. Does this roof abutt at 90 degrees to any other existing roof? - such that the builder might have had to change the pitch to get the valleys looking correct or the alignment of the new tiles correct against the existing (if you get my drift). If the answer is 'yes' it sounds like the architected fouled-up the drawings.
I hope that JtH or The Builder gets to this one because they both have far more practical experience than I have.
This is what RICS say about SMM: "SMM is used throughout the world by quantity surveyors and building surveyors. It represents a consistent method for measuring building works and good practice. This key source is also an essential resource for trainees and students studying surveying".
I think this is a crass explanation. Have you engaged the architect to oversee the build for a fee? - or did his/her commission cease with the drawings with you doing the contract administration with the builder?
If you think my explanation 1) is correct, you need to check it by measurement (roughly to within 100mm anyway) because the plans should not have been adjusted in this way without your agreement as the client.
Joists can be produced to any dimension (they are a custom-made item) so that is not an 'acceptable' excuse.
More questions I'm afraid. Does this roof abutt at 90 degrees to any other existing roof? - such that the builder might have had to change the pitch to get the valleys looking correct or the alignment of the new tiles correct against the existing (if you get my drift). If the answer is 'yes' it sounds like the architected fouled-up the drawings.
FS
Whilst not wishing to leap ahead of myself, if my scenario above (you have a new pitched roof at 90 degrees to the existing) is correct, I reckon we're onto the answer, because in this situation it is imperative that the pitch of the new roof is the same as the old.
If the architect failed to draw it such that the ridge-line of the new did allow for that, the builder would have to adjust it. He ought to have pointed out the error though.
Whilst not wishing to leap ahead of myself, if my scenario above (you have a new pitched roof at 90 degrees to the existing) is correct, I reckon we're onto the answer, because in this situation it is imperative that the pitch of the new roof is the same as the old.
If the architect failed to draw it such that the ridge-line of the new did allow for that, the builder would have to adjust it. He ought to have pointed out the error though.
1 to 11 of 11
