Variation Orders/Change Orders

KARUME wrote:Is there a limit on the value of variation or additional work compared to original contract sum?

Yes, there is limit in sense of looking the terms variation or additional works of which will affect the entirety contract price, and this may be referred to Rg 61 (4) of PPR 2013.

Is there a limit on the value of variation or additional work compared to original contract sum?

RJM,

Sorry, I differ with your idea that the main source of variation orders is the presence of variation order clause in the contracts. My previous submission in this topic illustrated that it is not possible to execute all activities in a works (especially road works) contract exactly as they appear in the original BoQ. There will be changes among the activities and at completion of contract, the consultant has to prepare the final account and the contractor prepares as built drawings. The variation can be -Ve or +Ve. Monies to cover for +ve variation are obtained from contingencies or Provisional sums included in the total contract value. The PPR2013, 243 (6) have provided the use of the fund as to cover variations in cost arising from any formula stated in the contract or additional services/works that are considered to be necessary by the PE.

Regarding "who initiates variation to the contract", the GCC (e.g for works) may be the contractor (through early warnings), the supervisor or the client (through the supervisor). There you can see that all three parties of the project can initiate the variation. What is important is the variation to be considered necessary by the PE for they are accountable to the public in general. Therefore, the variation must be approved by TB before implementation PPR 2013 110(3), must be submitted to PPRA within 7 days of issue PPR 2013 87 (3)(d).

Here again the three parts of the project are in the best position to control the variations for can not be implemented by the contractor before issued by the supervisor, and the supervisor can not issue the variation order before approval by the PE

RJM

I’m regretful that you are one of the practitioners accused by public and CLIENT for issuing changes during execution of a contract.

First, variation orders are not SIN if procedures are adhered as stipulated in say PPR 110 (quantity variation) and PPR 111 (Time variation) and in the conditions of Contract.

Second, Conditions of contracts provides a procedure to be followed when variations are necessary to be thought for the betterment of the contracts achievements. Example, for works it is clearly stated that the sum is estimate and the actual payment will be made against the measured works. In other words I can say that it is rare to complete the works contract without any variation/change of quantities in various activities. That is why is good practice for the project supervisor to prepare the final account of the project and the contractor required to submit as BUILT drawings.

Third, when necessary and does not prejudice the procuring entity, alterations may be of benefit to procuring entity, contractor/service provider and the general public as whole.

Last and very important; In light of provisions any practitioners should strictly adhere to the procedures including obtaining necessary approvals before issuing any variation order.

It is one year since you submitted this matter for discussion but please don't hesitate to clarify why your CLIENT is also one of those accusing you while he/she allowed that variation as provided in the Procurement regulation. (To my understanding Client is also the accounting officer). Did you seek all approvals before you issued the variation?

I remain

L