Friday, January 3, 2014

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

9:46 PM

By: OQSC Journal On: 9:46 PM In: measurement No comments

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

The RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) is a suite of documents issued by the RICS Quantity Surveying and Construction Professional Group to provide a standard set of measurement rules that are understandable by anyone involved in a construction project. Although principally based on UK practice, the need for a coordinated set of rules and underlying philosophy behind NRM has worldwide application.

The NRM suite comprises 3 volumes.

NRM 1: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for capital building works

NRM 1 provides guidance on the quantification of building works for the purpose of preparing cost estimates and cost plans. Direction is also given on quantifying other construction project costs which are not reflected in the measurable building work items: preliminaries, overheads and profit, project team and design team fees, risk allowances, inflation, and other development and project costs.

NRM 1 enables more effective and accurate cost advice to be given to clients and other project team members, and facilitates better cost control.

Although written primarily for the preparation of order of cost estimates and cost plans, the rules will be invaluable when preparing approximate estimates.

The rules can also be used as a basis for capturing historical cost data in the form required for order of cost estimates and elemental cost plans, thereby completing the ‘cost management cycle’.

The first edition, NRM: Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning, published in February 2009, but several factors prompted a second edition. The opportunity was also taken to simplify and augment certain aspects of the rules. The main changes are:

the title has changed to the RICS new rules of measurement: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for capital building works to distinguish between capital building works and building maintenance works;
some revisions have been made to the logic and arrangement of the group elements, elements and sub-elements.

The second edition became operative on 1 January 2013.

NRM 2: Detailed measurement for building works

NRM 2 provides guidance on the detailed measurement and description of building works for the purpose of obtaining a tender price. The rules address all aspects of bill of quantities (BQ) production, including setting out the information required from the employer and other construction consultants to enable a BQ to be prepared, as well as dealing with the quantification of non-measurable work items, contractor designed works and risks. Guidance is also provided on the content, structure and format of BQ, as well as the benefits and uses of BQ.

While written mainly for the preparation of bill of quantities, quantified schedules of works and quantified work schedules, the rules will be invaluable when designing and developing standard or bespoke schedules of rates.

The rules provide guidance to all those involved in the preparation of BQs, as well as those who wish to be better informed about the purpose, use and benefits of BQs.

The first edition of NRM 2 became operative on 1 January 2013 and replaces the Standard Method of Measurement for Building Works (SMM), its latest version being SMM7.

NRM 3: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for building maintenance works

NRM 3 will provide guidance on the quantification and description of maintenance works for preparing initial order of cost estimates during the preparation stages of a building project, cost plans during the design development and pre-construction stages, and detailed, asset-specific cost plans during the pre-construction phases of a building project, and guidance on the procurement and cost control of maintenance works.

The rules will follow the same framework and premise as NRM 1. They will also give direction on how to quantify and measure other items associated with maintenance works, but which are not reflected in the measurable maintenance work items.

NRM 3 is currently under development.

(Source - Isurv.com)

(Provided by Viewer)

You can Download the Files from our Publication section.

http://oqsc-journal.blogspot.ae/p/knowladge.html

Browse More Articles

Written by OQSC Journal

Our vision is to be the best Sri Lankan expat professional CPD group in the region. Our mission is to deliver the best knowledge and professional support to Sri Lankan Quantity Surveyors.

0 comments :

Quantum meruit and its scope
The basic principle under English law for claims under quantum meruit is that the employer will have a duty to pay the fair value of or, reasonable remuneration for, the work performed. ADAM WEBSTER* compares the provision with the UAE Civil Code.
Quantum meruit entitlements arise most commonly in construction cases where there is no contract but work is undertaken in circumstances where it is clearly not being done for free.
In Latin, the phrase means “what the job is worth” and in essence, it allows a person to recover the value of work done or services performed in circumstances where he has conferred a benefit on someone else which justice requires should be repaid.
A typical quantum meruit claim might arise where work starts whilst the parties are negotiating contract terms but ultimately the parties have not agreed on the applicable rate that is to be paid to the contractor or fail to agree any contract at all.
Alternatively, where the work that has been carried out by a contractor with the employer’s consent or upon his instruction is so different from the scope of work envisaged in the original contract that a new contract has effectively been formed, the contractor may be entitled to claim a quantum meruit for the additional work done.
The law will not deny the contractor an entitlement to payment, and the basic principle in English law is that the employer will have a duty to pay the fair value of or, reasonable remuneration for, the work performed. Issues will inevitably arise, however, as to the appropriate basis for valuation.
It is often thought that quantum meruit valuations are highly advantageous to contractors and that invariably they will open the door to “cost plus” entitlement, that is the net cost of labour and materials used plus a sum for overheads and profit. In truth, there is a great deal of case law on quantum meruit with a range of different approaches having been taken. As HHJ Hicks held in Serck Controls v Drake & Scull Engineering Limited (2000) 73 ConLR 100:
“A quantum meruit claim may …arise… across a spectrum which ranges at one end from an express contract to do work at an unquantified price, which expressly or by implication must be a reasonable one, to work (at the other extreme) done by an uninvited intruder which nevertheless confers on the recipient a benefit which, for some reason, such as estoppel or acquiescence, it is unjust for him to retain without making some restitution to the provider … At the first end of the spectrum … the measure should clearly be the reasonable remuneration of the claimant; at the other, it should be the value to the defendant. In between there is a borderline, the position of which may be debateable.”
Clearly, this is an area of the law where judges in English courts have some discretion and results are by no means predictable. Indeed, the recent case of ERDC Group Limited v Brunel University (2006) 109 ConLR 114 usefully highlights the inherent uncertainties and risks which abound when contractors are entitled to be paid on a quantum meruit basis.
In short, ERDC successfully tendered for the design and construction of a new sports facility at Brunel University’s Uxbridge campus, but a delay in obtaining planning permission meant that Brunel had to instruct ERDC to commence work under a letter of intent.
This letter of intent was relatively lengthy and detailed and Brunel agreed to pay for any work that was done on the basis of certain valuation rules (which were to apply to the contract when signed). The letter authorised work to proceed for a stipulated period of time within which a formal contract was to be executed. Three more letters were to follow, each one extending further this deadline. During this period, ERDC had applied for payment on the basis of its tender rates and prices and applying JCT principles. After the expiry of the last letter of intent, no formal contract was in place, but ERDC continued to work.
In this case, the judge was satisfied that all the usual requirements for a contract were present until the expiry of the last letter (that is September 1, 2002) and so, as there had been a contract until then, ERDC was entitled to be paid in accordance with rates and prices determined under the valuation rules that had been incorporated into that contract.
From September 1, 2002 onwards, however, the contract was found not to apply, and so ERDC was entitled to be paid reasonable remuneration for the benefit that the university had received.
In assessing what would be a fair and reasonable sum, the judge agreed with a comment made by Brunel’s quantum expert that “a price or rate that was reasonable before September 1, in my opinion, does not become unreasonable after September 1 simply because the authority in the letter of appointment expires”.
The fact that ERDC’s tender was shown to have been commercial and close to others supported the conclusion that continuing to use ERDC’s rates and prices, in many instances, were fair. For certain other items, however, where works had been prolonged beyond the period contemplated by the rates and additional costs had been incurred by ERDC as a result, or if it were appropriate to do so under the valuation rules, the Judge held that “cost plus” should be the appropriate valuation method.
As this case illustrates, under English law the position is far from being clear cut and cost plus entitlement should certainly not be assumed as a given by the contractor. By comparison, therefore, the question presents itself whether the UAE law contains, within its codified civil system, any provisions that address the notion of quantum meruit in a more straightforward manner.
Article 888 of the UAE Civil Code (“the Code”) applies where the parties have not agreed remuneration and the issue of a contractor’s entitlement to a reasonable remuneration arises. In this regard, Article 888 provides that, if the consideration for the work is not specified in a contract, the contractor is entitled to ‘fair compensation’, together with the value of the labour and materials he has provided (that is a cost plus approach).
Article 887 of the Code provides that a contractor may not demand any increase over a contractually agreed lump sum. Although the contractor assumes the risk in such a case for any cost overrun in carrying out the agreed lump sum works, it should not necessarily preclude a contractor from claiming payment on a cost plus basis for authorised works which fall outside the original scope of lump sum works.
However, Article 887 then goes on to provide that if any variation or addition is made to the scope of works with the consent of the employer, the existing agreement with the contractor must continue to be observed.
Under UAE law, therefore, an entitlement to an increase price for lump sum contracts is generally denied, subject only to variations or additions, the pricing of which should be assessed in the context of the overall work carried out. In the event that the employer instructs work that is out of scope and there are no applicable rates and prices under the contract, the contractor would be entitled to claim compensation by way of Article 888 and claim ‘fair compensation’, presumably on a cost plus basis.

OQSC Journal

Friday, January 3, 2014

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

9:46 PM

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

NRM 1: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for capital building works

NRM 2: Detailed measurement for building works

NRM 3: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for building maintenance works

Written by OQSC Journal

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Labels

Today's Term

Total Pageviews

Journal Entries

Popular Posts

Followers

Calender

Join us

About

OQSC Journal

Friday, January 3, 2014

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

9:46 PM

RICS new rules of measurement (NRM) 2013

NRM 1: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for capital building works

NRM 2: Detailed measurement for building works

NRM 3: Order of cost estimating and cost planning for building maintenance works

Written by OQSC Journal

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Labels

Today's Term

Total Pageviews

Journal Entries

Popular Posts

Followers

Calender

Join us

About

9:46 PM