CIVIL ENGINEERING STANDARD METHOD OF MEASUREMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE

May 1994

New CESMM3 Guidance Notes

The Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement is now in its third edition, but a few misunderstandings persist. John Banyard, chairman of the Standing CESMM Review Committee, introduces some new guidance. Since the publication of the first edition of the Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement in 1976,1 the Institution of Civil Engineers has maintained a Standing Review Committee to consider problems that have arisen with the use of the document and to provide advice to users. The document was revised in 1985 and again in 1991, taking account of changes in technology and users problems which had been reported to the Review Committee. Since the publication of the third edition in 1991, the number of difficulties reported has been relatively small, but the Review Committee has become aware that some problems are repetitive and there is dearly a misunderstanding of the intention of the document in these areas. It is disappointing to note that some of these problems, such as expressly required, go back to the fundamental principles embodied in the first edition, whereas others, such as the measurement of cutting interlocking steel piles, have existed since the second edition was introduced in 1985. The Committee has therefore produced the following guidance notes to assist users of CESMM3 in the compilation of bills and measurement of construction work. Preamble Items The ICE Conditions of Contract2 and CESMM31 are structured so as to share equitably between the parties to the contract the risks involved in carrying out works of civil engineering. Bills of Quantities are drawn up according to CESMM3 using rules for definition and measurement which are designed to remove as far as possible uncertainties in items for which the tenderer is pricing. It is therefore inappropriate to include in the Preamble to the Bill of Quantities or Specification, clauses which effectively introduce an unknown element which cannot be quantified and priced for by the tenderer at the time of tendering. Clauses in the Preamble which state that where work is not expressly identified within the Bill of Quantifies, costs are deemed to be included elsewhere and should not be used. Similarly, clauses which restrict re-measurement after work is carried out are unacceptable.

Expressly required The CESMM rules for many components of civil engineering work differ according to whether the work is expressly required or not. Expressly required is defined in paragraph 1.6 to mean shown on the Drawings, described in the Specification or ordered by the Engineer pursuant to the Contract. Difficulties are sometimes experienced on contracts where the specification or drawings are not clear about whether something is or is not expressly required. This can happen, for example, when specifications include clauses which say that the contractor may do something rather than he shall, and on drawings where dotted lines or imprecise wording leave it uncertain as to whether something is or is not expressly required. In order to avoid uncertainty when contractors are tendering and later arguments, those preparing tender documents are recommended to check before issuing the documents that there are no uncertainties of this type. The most thorough way to make this check is for every bill item which is affected by an expressly required rule, check that the drawings and specifications either clearly have no express requirement or have a clear express requirement. Experience has shown that including a standard specification extract or standard detail drawing originating from a third party is particularly often the cause of this problem. Disposal of excavated material Disposal of excavated material arises under many classes of work within CESMM3. Where the Item Description says nothing about where material is to be disposed of on or off site (and the contract is also silent), the Contractor is unconstrained. However, he should not assume that he will be allowed to leave such material on site. The rules in Classes E and T that disposal shall be off site are to remind compilers of Bills that if they require material to be retained on site, eg for landscaping mounds, then the location of the onsite tip must be stated. Cutting off sheet steel piles Item Q67 is measured in metres. The background is given on p.181 of the current handbook.3 The surplus lengths of interlocking piles are the horizontal lengths cut and Item Descriptions should identify the average depth or typical surplus area for disposal purposes. The Committee wishes to emphasise that its role is to provide advice on problems that arise from the practical application of CESMM, but it does not exist to provide an arbitration or dispute resolution service and such problems must be dealt with under the mechanisms provided for in individual contracts. One area that the Committee is considering at present is whether or not there is any demand for an extension of CESMM to deal with the measurement of maintenance work and/or renovation of existing structures. To date, the Committee has received a small amount of conflicting advice and would be pleased to receive further comments indicating whether or not users believe that there is sufficient work of this nature to justify further extension of CESMM. Alternatively, it may be that users of the document find its existing provisions sufficiently flexible to allow this type of work to be billed. Comments should be addressed to: Mr H Jones, Secretary, Standing CESMM Review Committee, ICE, Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.

151669719.doc

References 1. 2. 3. Institution of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement (CESMM) (three editions). Thomas Telford, London, 1976, 1985, 1991. Institution of Civil Engineers. ICE Conditions of Contract (5th and 6th editions). Thomas Telford, London, 1973, 1991. Barnes M. CESMM3 Handbook. Thomas Telford, London, 1992: This article was originally published in the Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers Civil Engineering Volume 102 Issue 2 May 1994. Comments should now be addressed to :Drick Vernon, Secretary, Standing CESMM Review Committee, The Institution of Civil Engineers, One Great George Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3AA.

151669719.doc