Ann: Response to Media Articles , page-2

Classic problem.

This is typical for a contract implemented by clients that work with outside consultants. QS can not keep up with all the scope changes, and the contractor is pushing ahead to keep in line with planning as much as possible. Many QS can only handle old fashion contractor bashing, and are unfamiliar with modern trust and collaborative based contract models. Meantime payment gap grows and variations are not valued and approved.

It is always underestimated what real cost of scope changes are. Disruption escalates costs.

I have seen this more than once, and in the end the contractor gets paid, as they are more aware of how to operate and manage the contract. The client has knowledge of operating the asset, not of building it. They get misled by the freelancers they hire to manage the implementation.

Projects like this have to be managed on trust, in line with the contract model. The number of scope changes and the financial backlog of over 23 mln tell the whole story.

So far AJL has stuck its neck out more then substantially with outstanding payments of less then 3.5 mln. They have an absurd negative cash flow as a result. They have displayed the maximum of what is achievable in payment terms to subbies. The client has to open its eyes. AJL is not their bank, nor is it an insurer.

Any client that is building a project with 700 scope changes should want to hide under a stone. To not grant the financial consequences to the construction company is denying the 700 changes. Doesn't look right!