YOUR article regarding the delays to the £22m relief road is interesting in that it purports to refer to a dispute between the county council and the contractor, while at the same time emphasising the council’s role in “pushing the contractor”, Carillion, to “get the work finished and protect taxpayers’ interests”.

After a life-time spent in civil engineering contracting I can only wonder if Cllr Osman realises the completion date of a project is quite separate from the timing of settling the final account.

The content of the dispute is rightly being withheld from the public, if for no other reason it protects the interests of both parties to the contract while the dispute, and settlement of the final account, are being resolved.

However the type, and by definition the terms, of contract should be made available both to the public and the councillors without the need for gagging orders.

I assume the contract would be a standard form of contract for this type of work, depending on whether it was let, for example, as a lump sum, fixed price, or a variation contract where additional work and delays arising can be valued properly in accordance with those terms.


RELATED: Latest deadline for NIDR completion missed


Your report gives the impression Carillion is “demanding” millions more than the value of the “original bill”.

In the second form of contract there is no such thing as an “original bill”, when it would normally be expected to have a different final value than the value based on the contractors’ successful tender.

The contractor is in no position to “demand” extra payments, nor extensions of time, but would be entitled to both in accordance with the terms of the contract. Only when this process has been exhausted would a dispute arise.

Your readers may be confused...this report suggests there is a monumental breakdown in trust between the two parties to the contract, and if so, it is no wonder they are in dispute, or perhaps there is “no smoke here without fire”.

Who lit the fire?

P NAYLOR
Chard