Committees are routinely advised to obtain three quotations. On remedial work, three quotations usually price three different scopes of work, which means the lowest figure carries the least information about the eventual cost of the project. Establishing comparability is a separate exercise from obtaining the prices, and it is the exercise that determines whether the selection is sound.

The following sequence sets out how comparability can be established.

Scope comparability

Scope definition is the central issue. Where Contractor A has allowed for repairing 40 square metres of spalled concrete and Contractor B has allowed for 15, B is the lower price and will remain so until the additional 25 square metres are raised as variations at variation rates.

Requirement: a defect schedule with quantities. Not “repair concrete spalling to balconies” but “repair 42 identified spall locations totalling approximately 38m², itemised by balcony.” A submission that does not quantify the work is an estimate rather than a quotation, and it cannot be compared against one that does.

Where quantities genuinely cannot be established until the work is opened up, the appropriate treatment is a provisional sum or provisional quantity, identified as such, with a stated rate applying beyond the allowance. A lump sum presented as fixed while covering an extent that has not been established is either loaded to absorb the risk or exposed to a variation claim.

Access pricing

Access is frequently one of the largest cost items in facade work. Where it is incorporated into the repair rates, the quotations cannot be compared on either component, and it is not possible to establish whether the access method was selected to suit the building or to suit the equipment the contractor holds.

Requirement: access itemised as a separate line, with the method named. The basis for the selection should then be sought from each contractor. A substantiated answer refers to the defect density and the programme for the specific building. An answer that refers only to the contractor’s standard practice does not address the question.

Variations and latent conditions

Every remedial project carries a probability of uncovering conditions not visible at the time of pricing. The relevant question is not whether that occurs but what the contract provides when it does.

Matters to confirm before contract:

The process for raising a variation, and whether work stops pending approval
The rates applying to additional work, and whether those rates are stated in the quotation
The items that have been expressly excluded

The exclusions schedule is the most informative part of a remedial quotation and the part most often passed over. A contractor who states exclusions clearly is identifying where the risk has been allocated. A quotation containing no exclusions has either not addressed the question at the pricing stage or has left it to be resolved in correspondence during the works.

Specified systems and materials

An instruction to waterproof the balconies describes an outcome rather than a specification. Membrane systems vary considerably in cost, design life and suitability, and a lower-cost system installed correctly can still be unsuited to a trafficable deck.

Requirement: named systems and named manufacturers. A specification reading “liquid-applied polyurethane membrane, [manufacturer and product], installed to manufacturer specification, 15-year material warranty” can be compared between submissions. A specification reading “quality waterproof membrane” cannot.

The same applies to concrete repair mortars, coatings and sealants. Once the systems are named, the manufacturer’s technical department can be asked whether the proposed specification suits the substrate, exposure and traffic conditions of the building, which is an independent check available at no cost.

Documentation deliverables

Most remedial work becomes inaccessible on completion. The membrane is beneath the tiles, the repair mortar is behind the coating, and the reinforcement treatment is within the concrete. Where the work was not photographed at the point of installation, there is no subsequent means of verifying that it was executed to the specification, either for the owners corporation or for a subsequent contractor, purchaser or insurer.

Requirement: hold-point photography and a completion report specified as contract deliverables rather than requested as a courtesy. Where a contractor declines to document work that will be concealed, the completed work cannot be verified against the specification.

Commercial checks

Registration and insurance — current certificates, provided without follow-up. The registration should be checked against the class of work being procured.
Payment terms — in Victoria, commercial construction payment is governed by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002. Terms drafted by reference to the Act indicate that the contractor administers payment as a defined process.
Deposits — substantial upfront deposits are not standard practice on remedial contracts and should be queried where proposed.
Personnel — whether the work is performed by employees or subcontractors, and which specialist partners are engaged for cathodic protection, fire engineering or rope access. The identity of the parties performing the work is a reasonable pre-contract enquiry.

Cost implications of a properly scoped comparison

Applying this process will sometimes establish that the lowest quotation was lowest because it was scoped without investigation, and that a scope reflecting the actual extent of the defects costs more than the committee had budgeted. That outcome is unwelcome at the procurement stage.

It is nonetheless preferable to establishing the same position during the works, when the extent is revealed after access has been erected and finishes removed, and the owners corporation is negotiating variations from a position in which suspending the works carries its own cost.

General guidance only, not legal or contractual advice. Contract terms and statutory rights depend on the circumstances — seek advice on significant works.

Comparing remedial quotations: a method for assessing non-comparable scopes