Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
looking at claims?
This question usually arises when the architect has been engaged on the basis of the RIBA
Standard or Concise Conditions of Appointments for an Architect 2010 (2012 revision)
whicharesomewhatsimilarinterms.Inordertoarriveattheanswertothisquestion,itisne-
cessary to look at the terms of the engagement. A client will usually argue that dealing with
contractors' claims ispartofthearchitect'snormalcontract administration duties.However,
if the architect is being remunerated on a percentage basis (as is usual), the client will also
argue that there is no incentive for the architect to reduce a claim made by the contractor,
because the architect's percentage payment will increase as the claim increases. Such an ar-
gument says little for the client's opinion of the architect's professional integrity, and it is a
source of wonder that a client will employ an architect while having such reservations. The
RIBA Standard Conditions lay that particular concern to rest; under 'Definitions' it clearly
statesthattheConstructionCostdoesnotinclude'anylossand/orexpensepaymentspaidto
a contractor'. A similar term would be implied in the RIBA Concise Conditions.
Forafullydesignedprojectwherethearchitect'sservicesincludeadministeringthebuild-
ing contract, the RIBA Standard Conditions include 'ascertaining or instructing ascertain-
ment of loss and expense due to the contractor'. The Special Services section includes the
optionof'AssistancetotheContractAdministratordealingwithextensionsoftimeandcon-
tractor's claims'. Where the architect is already acting as contract administrator, this service
is not additional. Therefore, it seems clear that the architect must include for ascertainment
of claims, even though, if a percentage fee is being charged, the amount of loss and/or ex-
pense is not part of the construction cost on which it is based. The architect's only remedy
appearstobetoinstructthequantitysurveyortoascertainwhatboththeRIBAtermsandthe
building contract permit, which is probably the norm. Hopefully, the quantity surveyor can
charge extra fees for ascertainment.
The contract administrator role says nothing about the extremely time-consuming task of
forminganopinionpriortocarryingouttheascertainment ofmoneydue.Itmightbeargued
thatitisimpliedthatthearchitectmustcarryoutthistaskaspartofthecontractadministrat-
or's role because it is something which has to be done. Of course it only has to be done if
the contractor submits a claim. One can only imply a term like this into a contract if it is ob-
vious and if it does not fly in the face of a term already included. Clause 5.9 already allows
the architect to claim additional fees 'for reasons beyond the Architect's reasonable control'
and for which the Architect 'would not otherwise be remunerated'. It is clear that the con-
tractor's claims for loss and/or expense and the notification of delays requiring extension of
time are matters beyond the architect's control. It is also clear that the architect would not
be reimbursed in any other way. Therefore, there is no room to imply a term which would
