Variations - Building Contract Claims - page 312

The machinery for submission of daywork vouchers, and particularly the
timing, is also highly unsatisfactory. The requirement that the vouchers
should be 'delivered for verification to the architect or his authorised repre-
sentative not later than the end of the week following that in which the work
has been executed' is quite unworkable. If the architect or his representative
is to verify what is set out on the voucher, i.e. to vouch for the truth of it, it is
surely wholly unreasonable to expect him to be able to do so when a
voucher for work executed on the Monday of one week does not have to
be delivered to him for that purpose until Friday of the week following - an
interval of 11 days.
There seems also to be a widespread impression that the clerk of works,
if there is one, will be the architect's 'authorised representative' in this
context - not surprisingly, since this is otherwise the only reference to the
possible existence of such an individual as the architect's representative
in the entire contract. Reference to clause 12, however, will show that
the clerk of works, far from being a representative of the architect, is an
'inspector on behalf of the Employer', and that he therefore has no authority
to verify daywork vouchers unless the architect specifically gives him that
authority.
The only sensible way to deal with the problem of verification of daywork
vouchers seems to be for the contractor to give advance notice to the
architect of his intention to keep daywork records of a particular item of
work; for the architect himself to attend the site or, if he is unable to do so, to
nominate the clerk of works to act as his 'authorised representative' for that
purpose and to take his own records of the time spent and materials used;
and for the vouchers to be submitted for verification at the end of each day.
In that way, at least, the quantity surveyor can be reasonably certain that the
vouchers represent an accurate record of time and materials. If this system is
to work properly, it requires the quantity surveyor to notify the contractor in
advance of his intention to value using daywork. Of course, he is still under
no obligation to accept daywork as the method of valuation if, in his
opinion, the work can properly be measured.
Verification is normally carried out by signing the sheets. Often the magic
formula 'For record purposes only' is added. However, where dayworks is
to be the method of valuation in any particular case, the addition of those
words has little practical value and certainly does not prevent the contents
of the sheets being used for calculation of payment 591 . In these circum-
stances it appears that the quantity surveyor has no right to substitute his
own opinion for the hours and other resources on the sheets 592 . It has been
held that where the employer has set out a system of verification by signing,
but has neglected to do so, the sheets will stand without further proof as
evidence of the work done unless they can be shown to be inaccurate 593 .

591 Inserco v. Honeywell 19 April 1996, unreported.
592 Clusky (trading as Damian Construction) v. Chamberlain , Building Law Monthly, April 1995, p.6.
593

JDM Accord Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2004) CILL 2067.