What does the measurement term Extra Over Item means?

Answer 1

The Meaning of "Extra Over"
By John B Molloy, LLB (Hons), BSc (Hons), FHKIS, FRICS, ACIArb Managing Director, James R Knowles
(Hong Kong) Limited
When disputes arise and the matter is
referred to arbitration the representatives of
the parties often spend a considerable
amount of time arguing over who should be
the arbitrator. Quite often the argument
centres as much on the qualifications of the
person to be appointed as much as his
identity.
The difficulties that may arise where an
inappropriate choice of arbitrator is made
can be seen from the 1998 case of A and J
Rogers v Northern Ireland Housing
Executive where a dispute of a matter of a
purely quantity surveying nature was
referred to an arbitrator who clearly was not
a quantity surveyor by profession.
The case concerned the term "extra over", a
term common in Bills of Quantities and well
known to all quantity surveyors.
For example Section 6 of the Hong Kong
Government Standard Method of
Measurement for Civil Engineering Works
requires that items for pipes be measured in
linear metres and that the length shall be
calculated along the centreline of the pipe
through pipe fittings and the like. Pipe
fittings such as bends are then measured by
number as "Extra Over" items.
Therefore if one wishes to assess the price
for a bend it is the rate for the pipe, plus the
extra over rate for the bend itself. The
concept of this is clear and one would have
thought well understood.
However it seemed to caused considerable
difficulty to the arbitrator whose decision
was the subject of an appeal in the above.
In that matter a contract was let adopting the
JCT Form of Contract 1980 Edition under
which A and J Rogers were required to
modernise twenty four houses. As part of
the works, temporary accommodation in the
form of mobile homes were required to
house the tenants and their belongings
whilst the individual houses were
modernised.
Provision was made in the Bills of
Quantities for the mobile homes in the
following terms.
Mobile Homes
a) Four berth mobile homes. BSI mobile
homes (B.S. 3532 1981 amended 1983)
duration not exceeding one week,
supplying, connecting temporary
electricity supply, rates and charges, all
maintenance, cleaning out and
disinfecting as necessary, removing
from site, making good.
12 No. at £280.00 each total
£3,360.00
b) Extra over for each additional week
288 No. at £40.00 each total
£11,520.00
To a quantity surveyor the meaning of these
items appears clear. There were twenty four
homes to be modernised. Twelve mobile
homes were to be provided which would
allow the work to be carried out in two
phases of twelve houses at a time. The price
was £280.00 for each mobile home for the
first week. This price would include supply,
deliver, set up connecting temporary
supplies, rates and removal on completion.
For each week beyond the first the prices
would be £40 per week for each mobile
home which presumably would include for
maintenance and utility charges.
However the contractor argued that the price
of each mobile home for the first week was
£280.00 and thereafter for each additional
week the price should be £280 plus ?40
totalling £320.
The matter went to arbitration and the
arbitrator agreed with the contractor that for
each additional week beyond the first the
price for each mobile home would be £320.
The point was appealed and the Court,
whilst commenting on the "ingenious
arguments" put forward by the contractor,
came to a speedy conclusion that the
arbitrator was incorrect in his decision.
The arbitrator whilst appreciating that the
price for an extra over item such as a bend
in a pipe was a combination of the rate for
the pipe and the extra over rate for the bend,
failed to appreciate that the base item of the
mobile home for the first week had already
been measured and paid for and therefore
the rate for each additional week was the
extra over rate alone.
In simple terms, and using the previous
example, if you have items in the Bills of
quantities for pipes - 10 metres and 'extra
over for bends' - 10 no. If the one extra bend
is required the additional sum is simply the
extra over rate for the bend. The base rate
for the pipe has been paid for already.
Had the parties chosen an experienced
quantity surveyor as arbitrator the problems
should never have arisen. Nor, it should be
noted, would the problems have arisen if the
works had been measured under the Hong
Kong Government Standard Method of
Measurement for Civil Engineering Works,
where items for establishment, maintenance
and removal of the temporary homes would
have been provided which would have left
no room for confusion.

Answer 2

The Meaning of "Extra Over"
By John B Molloy, LLB (Hons), BSc (Hons), FHKIS, FRICS, ACIArb Managing Director, James R Knowles
(Hong Kong) Limited
When disputes arise and the matter is
referred to arbitration the representatives of
the parties often spend a considerable
amount of time arguing over who should be
the arbitrator. Quite often the argument
centres as much on the qualifications of the
person to be appointed as much as his
identity.
The difficulties that may arise where an
inappropriate choice of arbitrator is made
can be seen from the 1998 case of A and J
Rogers v Northern Ireland Housing
Executive where a dispute of a matter of a
purely quantity surveying nature was
referred to an arbitrator who clearly was not
a quantity surveyor by profession.
The case concerned the term "extra over", a
term common in Bills of Quantities and well
known to all quantity surveyors.
For example Section 6 of the Hong Kong
Government Standard Method of
Measurement for Civil Engineering Works
requires that items for pipes be measured in
linear metres and that the length shall be
calculated along the centreline of the pipe
through pipe fittings and the like. Pipe
fittings such as bends are then measured by
number as "Extra Over" items.
Therefore if one wishes to assess the price
for a bend it is the rate for the pipe, plus the
extra over rate for the bend itself. The
concept of this is clear and one would have
thought well understood.
However it seemed to caused considerable
difficulty to the arbitrator whose decision
was the subject of an appeal in the above.
In that matter a contract was let adopting the
JCT Form of Contract 1980 Edition under
which A and J Rogers were required to
modernise twenty four houses. As part of
the works, temporary accommodation in the
form of mobile homes were required to
house the tenants and their belongings
whilst the individual houses were
modernised.
Provision was made in the Bills of
Quantities for the mobile homes in the
following terms.
Mobile Homes
a) Four berth mobile homes. BSI mobile
homes (B.S. 3532 1981 amended 1983)
duration not exceeding one week,
supplying, connecting temporary
electricity supply, rates and charges, all
maintenance, cleaning out and
disinfecting as necessary, removing
from site, making good.
12 No. at £280.00 each total
£3,360.00
b) Extra over for each additional week
288 No. at £40.00 each total
£11,520.00
To a quantity surveyor the meaning of these
items appears clear. There were twenty four
homes to be modernised. Twelve mobile
homes were to be provided which would
allow the work to be carried out in two
phases of twelve houses at a time. The price
was £280.00 for each mobile home for the
first week. This price would include supply,
deliver, set up connecting temporary
supplies, rates and removal on completion.
For each week beyond the first the prices
would be £40 per week for each mobile
home which presumably would include for
maintenance and utility charges.
However the contractor argued that the price
of each mobile home for the first week was
£280.00 and thereafter for each additional
week the price should be £280 plus ?40
totalling £320.
The matter went to arbitration and the
arbitrator agreed with the contractor that for
each additional week beyond the first the
price for each mobile home would be £320.
The point was appealed and the Court,
whilst commenting on the "ingenious
arguments" put forward by the contractor,
came to a speedy conclusion that the
arbitrator was incorrect in his decision.
The arbitrator whilst appreciating that the
price for an extra over item such as a bend
in a pipe was a combination of the rate for
the pipe and the extra over rate for the bend,
failed to appreciate that the base item of the
mobile home for the first week had already
been measured and paid for and therefore
the rate for each additional week was the
extra over rate alone.
In simple terms, and using the previous
example, if you have items in the Bills of
quantities for pipes - 10 metres and 'extra
over for bends' - 10 no. If the one extra bend
is required the additional sum is simply the
extra over rate for the bend. The base rate
for the pipe has been paid for already.
Had the parties chosen an experienced
quantity surveyor as arbitrator the problems
should never have arisen. Nor, it should be
noted, would the problems have arisen if the
works had been measured under the Hong
Kong Government Standard Method of
Measurement for Civil Engineering Works,
where items for establishment, maintenance
and removal of the temporary homes would
have been provided which would have left
no room for confusion.