Blog
Constructing additional floors on top of existing blocks of flats
Daniel Clyne
For main contractors and sub-contractors seeking to protect themselves from the ravages of construction material price inflation, the obvious solutions are the fluctuations provisions that accompany many of the industry standard form contracts. During the recent period of unusually high inflation we have been asked to advise upon such provisions and how they may, or indeed may not, protect project participants.
We explore below how price fluctuations can be dealt with in two of the most widely used industry standard forms: the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 and NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract.
This widely used design and build contract contains standard mechanisms which can facilitate the adjustment of the contract sum in response to the rise and fall of market forces and input costs beyond the control of the parties. There are three standard form "Fluctuations Provisions" that can be selected in the contract particulars or the parties could agree to incorporate a bespoke approach.
Under Option A (the simplest and most easily navigated of the three JCT options), the contract sum is expressly deemed to have been calculated using:
each calculated as at the base date which the parties agree and insert into the contract particulars.
Under this Option, the contract sum will fluctuate if:
In order to properly ascertain the existence and extent of any fluctuation, the onus is on the Contractor to notify the Employer and provide evidence and computations, however it is worth noting that any price fluctuation does not alter the Contractor's profit margin and the contract sum does not fluctuate when the Contractor is in culpable delay.
If the primary concern of project participants is construction material price inflation then this Option is not going to be helpful. Although it is simple and relatively easy to operate, Option A does not respond to the increase or decrease in the prices of materials and would not provide comfort to a contractor concerned with the impact of inflation.
As with Option A, the contract sum under Option B responds to increases or decreases in the levies and taxes applicable to the Contractor's role as an 'employer', and to duties and taxes applicable to any import, purchase, sale, processing, use and disposal of materials, goods, electricity and fuels necessary for the execution of the works. Option B goes further, however, and provides for adjustments to the contract sum in relation to fluctuations in:
Just like Option A, the contract sum under Option B is adjusted upwards or downwards to reflect fluctuations of the relevant rates and prices occurring after the base date. The Contractor is also subject to the same requirements as under Option A in respect of the notification and provision of evidence as to the amount payable; is not be entitled to any uplift in its profit; and is not entitled to any adjustment of the contract sum for periods during which it is in culpable delay.
Option B goes further than just addressing levies and tax fluctuations dealt with in Option A by specifically addressing labour costs and material costs. Option B is likely to be more helpful in the current climate of high construction material price inflation but one would question whether there is a compelling need for levies and taxes to also fluctuate.
Option C is the most complex and comprehensive of the JCT Fluctuations Options, incorporating the 64-page JCT Formula Rules to calculate the amount by which the contract sum should be adjusted. The Formula Rules themselves refer to 'monthly bulletins', namely the BCIS Price Adjustment Formulae Indices Online, which inform how inflation has affected various items and values of work during the relevant period, to be used in calculating each interim payment.
The Formula Rules are set out over three sub-parts each containing separate formulae to be applied. The applicable part of the Formula Rules is to be nominated in the Employer's Requirements or Contractor's Proposals.
Fluctuations Option C provides robust and comprehensive methods of determining and valuing the impact of price fluctuations on the Contract Sum, not lease those associated with material price inflation. If any of the methods provided are not entirely suitable for a particular circumstance, there is an express provision setting out how the parties may themselves agree any alteration to the methods and procedures to more appropriately calculate the required adjustments. However, the complexity and high administrative overhead associated with Fluctuations Option C would make the application of this option challenging on all but the largest of projects.
The NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract is intended to be a much more collaborative contract than the more conventional JCT approach and is purportedly drafted in more of a 'plain English' style. Consequently, the NEC4 ECC price adjustment options are more simply worded and employ succinct drafting to transfer inflation risk onto the employer.
Of the 22 secondary 'X options' that can be selected in the NEC4 ECC, Option X1 – Price adjustment for inflation, is particularly relevant to managing price fluctuations.
Option X1 uses a "Price Adjustment Factor" (PAF) to change the "Price for Work Done to Date" since the last assessment under the contract. The PAF is calculated using a relatively simple formula based on changes in value between the products listed in:
In the case of priced contracts using an activity schedule (Main Options A and B) the Lump Sum payable is increased or decreased by the amount calculated for inflation. In the case of target contracts (Main Options C and D) the Target Price is increased or decreased by the amount calculated for inflation. Option X1 cannot be used for cost reimbursable or management contracts (Main Options E and F).
Option X1 also deals with the Defined Cost associated with compensation events. The PAF will be used to assess the relevant cost of compensation events to ensure any effects of inflation are taken into consideration. Compensation costs in respect of people and equipment are, however, still assessed as at the base date and so the effects of inflation are not factored into those costs.
One can select either a single index or multiple indices when using Option X1 which allows the parties to use it in as targeted a manner as they would like. Applied to the current inflationary climate, Option X1 is beneficial in that one can tailor the Contract Data to reflect the most appropriate index or indices for the project.
The drafting in Option X1 also ensures that after the Completion Date the PAF will not be changed, meaning that if the Contractor is in culpable delay it will carry the risk of increased prices due to any further effects of inflation after the date the PAF is frozen.
If you have any questions or concerns about the topics raised in this blog, please contact Peter Metcalfe, Cameron Mason or any member of the Real Estate & Construction team.
Peter Metcalfe is a partner in the Real Estate & Construction team with extensive experience on all aspects of construction and engineering projects, from procurement and the drafting and negotiation of contracts, to contract administration and the avoidance and resolution of disputes.
Cameron Mason is an associate in our Real Estate and Construction team. He has experience in both contentious and non-contentious construction and engineering matters, including working for a range of clients on major infrastructure projects and commercial and residential developments.
Whether you are taking the big step of buying or renting your first commercial property, purchasing a development site, adding to your buy to let portfolio or purchasing your new home, understanding Value Added Tax (VAT) is an essential part of the world of real estate.
You own the freehold to an apartment building in London, and you are approached by the developer with an interesting proposal. They want to buy the unused rooftop space on your building to develop and sell some new flats. Their pitch? We pay you 2 million pounds and we take on all the expense and risk of construction and the building. Sounds great, right? But, what’s that nagging voice in your head saying “this is too good to be true”.
Whilst the developer’s plan is part of a growing trend to build extra floor on top of existing buildings to create new homes (and lines up with the government’s goal to boost housing across the UK), there are a number of risks to consider and actions to implement before agreeing such a sale.
The Building Cost Information Service reported that construction material price inflation peaked at 26% in June 2023. Political instability, extreme weather and recessionary pressures saw the construction industry in the UK continue to grapple with the challenge of inflation, which has significantly impacted project costs, programmes and overall project viability.
The UK is currently facing a housing crisis. Looking at London in particular, the property market has not been able to support the exponential growth of residents in the capital.
Frequently Asked Questions on the Building Safety Fund
Last month, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Building Societies Association (BSA) and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process for buildings more than six storeys high.
The value of the UK’s data economy is over £70 billion and this is only set to increase. Digital Realty’s “The Data Economy Report 2018” estimates that there is a further £50 billion of untapped potential in this part of the UK economy.
In construction, “underpinning” is the process of strengthening the foundation of an existing structure in order to provide stability in cases where the original foundation is not strong enough. In respect of building safety, the Hackitt Report seeks to change the ethos of the industry by strengthening the existing foundations and introducing new ideas to build upon them.
In my previous blog, I concluded my review of how the roles and responsibilities of the key CDM duty holders may be applied to Higher Risk Residential Buildings (“HRRBs”). In this blog, I will explore the Hackitt Report’s recommendation for the introduction of a ‘golden thread’ of quality building information and what that means for Principal Designers and Principal Contractors.
In my previous blog I provided an overview of the history of health and safety legislation, and analysed the Hackitt report’s recommendation that the CDM Regulations should be extended to HRRBs. I concluded by looking at how the proposals may impact clients (as defined by the CDM Regulations). I continue the theme in this blog by reviewing the potential implications on the other CDM duty holders – Designers, Contractors, Principal Designers and Principal Contractors.
Our blog series began with a review of Dame Judith Hackitt’s report and our examination of whether an outright ban on combustible materials is required. In this blog we analyse the primary purpose of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (‘CDM Regulations’), how the CDM Regulations apply to key persons in a construction project and how the Report suggests the construction industry apply the regulations to higher risk residential buildings (HRRBs).
Delay is a major issue on construction projects. To combat this, most construction contracts will specify a particular date by which the works must be completed. If the contractor fails to meet this deadline, it will usually have to pay a pre-agreed level of damages for the period of delay. This is unless the contractor can show that it has a claim for an extension of time which will push back the date for completion.
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government commissioned a report to make recommendations on the future regulatory system covering high rise and complex buildings. In her final report (‘Building a Safer Future, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report’), published in May 2018, Dame Hackitt called for major reform and a change of culture, making clear that the current system is not fit for purpose.
A substantial rebuild or simply papering over the cracks- What does the Hackitt Report mean for the construction industry? - A blog series
The recent judgment of Redbourn Group Ltd v Fairgate Developments Ltd [2018] EWHC 658 highlights the importance, for a developer appointing a consultant to carry out services on a construction project, of ensuring the appointment terms are clear on: (a) circumstances entitling the developer to terminate the Consultant’s employment and (b) any amounts payable by the developer to the consultant on such termination.
Today marks the end of the government consultation on the practice of cash retentions under construction contracts.
The recent decision of Mr Justice Akenhead in Henia and Beck Interiors ([2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC)), provides some helpful guidance regarding the validity of Interim Applications for Payment and Pay Less Notices
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Daniel Clyne
Vanessa Rhodes
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print