Jimbo37

Should this have been included in the price?

Recommended Posts

I'm nearing the end of my build, and I have come across a hitch. I asked my builder to provide a price based on the drawings, snippet attached. In your view, (1) should the last item have been included in the price, and (2) if not, should it have prompted a clarification from the builder.

 - The builder feels it is clearly a note that informs the builder that the 18mm ply should be ready "to receive interior coating / sealant (finishing)"

 - I feel different, he is pricing to build something as described

Clearly, I have to consider whether his interpretation is right, and if it is clear (i.e. should it have prompted a clarification), or if he simply is incorrect.

Tricky!

201121-sealant.PNG

Edited by Jimbo37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it doesn’t state what it is to be the coating how would he know how to price it. 

You might want to coat it in gold leaf. 

Sorry not included in my opinion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are arguing over whether the builder will paint a coat of sealant on the interior ply?

 

I think the wording "to receive" makes it look like it is specifying a grade of ply suitable for further finishing by others - i.e not a simple sheathing ply

 

I would say yes it should have prompted clarification from the builder, but more importantly it should have prompted more detail from you.

 

The cost of mopping the interior ply with watered down PVA might be vastly different from 2 coats of Osmo oil

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a bit of confusion on Botha sides 

If it’s not going to be a lot of money I would pay him to do it 

Rather than sour things at this stage 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not read that as being part of the builders spec. Not down to him to finish imo

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I agree.  Its ambiguous but "ready to receive" would be by interpretation as well. 

 

No insulation mentioned?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Temp said:

Sorry but I agree.  Its ambiguous but "ready to receive" would be by interpretation as well. 

 

No insulation mentioned?

Its a garage, hence absence of insulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your builder, it is telling him to apply 18mm plywood that will then receive interior finishing, i.e use a nice plywood not sheathing ply, it is also a bit strange that the type of ply is not mentioned there are many different varieties of 18mm ply availiable. The spec could have had more detail,how do you expect him to quote for an interior finish if you havent specified what it is you want? As has been said you could have wanted a really expensive finish or a really cheap coat of white emulsion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the views. ,@Russell griffiths, @bassanclan, @nod, @Big Jimbo, @Temp

Although I personally think it could and should have been called out for clarification by the builder for clarification at the pricing stage, I wasn't

(nor was it priced), as well as the general consensus that it is ambiguous, so I have to suck it up. I am also mindful that I contributed to the mix-up.

Perhaps, the real source of my annoyance at the builder is down to his failure to engage with my attempts to have meaningful discussions at the pricing stage, in a bid to avoid such mix-ups. I think the reason for that is three fold - it costs him to tease these things out, i.e. his QS time on a job he has not yet won , can effectively make his quote look more expensive and he knows he wont be the one picking up the cost of misunderstandings. I'll clock it up to lessons learned!

Again, thanks for taking the time.

@Hobbiniho

Edited by Jimbo37
Credit to Hobbinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jimbo37 said:

Thanks for all the views. ,@Russell griffiths, @bassanclan, @nod, @Big Jimbo, @Temp

Although I personally think it could and should have been called out for clarification by the builder for clarification at the pricing stage, I wasn't

(nor was it priced), as well as the general consensus that it is ambiguous, so I have to suck it up. I am also mindful that I contributed to the mix-up.

Perhaps, the real source of my annoyance at the builder is down to his failure to engage with my attempts to have meaningful discussions at the pricing stage, in a bid to avoid such mix-ups. I think the reason for that is three fold - it costs him to tease these things out, i.e. his QS time on a job he has not yet won , can effectively make his quote look more expensive and he knows he wont be the one picking up the cost of misunderstandings. I'll clock it up to lessons learned!

Again, thanks for taking the time.

@Hobbiniho

I think if the builders attitude is as reasonable as yours 

He will sort it out quickly and as cheaply as possible 

      Good luck 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now