The main contractor's number looks invented and I can't say why
The figure in their claim against me looks too round and too high, but I can't point to where it's wrong.
Updated: . By Jack Butler-Kettle, Construction Claims Consultant.
What's happening?
A claim against you can look suspiciously round or high. That feeling is not an answer, and your main contractor will not drop a figure because you say it looks wrong. The figure is built from quantities, rates, allocations, sums and price increases, and nobody on your side has checked them yet.
Reject it as a whole, or argue only the principle, and their figure stays the only worked-out number on the table. Money can then be deducted from what you are owed, or awarded against you, on the strength of a document nobody on your side has tested.
The solution
Test the figure against the quantities, rates, allocations and source documents you can get. Check the arithmetic and any price increases added on. Mark each item supported, disputed or still needing their evidence, and link each finding to a source, an amount and the next action.
Counterclaim Defence runs that test to a depth agreed with you, shows where it sampled and how it worked, and builds your answer from it. A sample is not a full audit, and a missing source does not prove their figure wrong. You decide which points to press or concede, and legal questions stay with your solicitor.
Example
Illustrative example. The scenario and figures are invented.
The facts
A subcontractor receives an £840,000 counterclaim from its main contractor. It covers 60 contra-charges and a prolongation head, the cost of the job running longer. The commercial director's instinct is that the figure is invented, but that instinct is not an answer.
What happens
- The depth of the review is agreed first. The arithmetic, the rates and the price increases are checked in full. The 5 largest contra-charges are remeasured as a sample, rather than all 60.
- Each finding is linked to a source, an amount and a requested action.
- The summary sheet adds up its own subtotals wrongly and overstates the counterclaim by £26,000.
- The price increase on materials has been added twice, worth £14,000. Labour has been priced from a later rate table than the one the subcontract fixes, a difference of £31,000.
- Of the 5 sampled contra-charges, 3 are supported on quantity and 2 are overstated by £19,000. The other 55 are reported as unchecked at this depth.
- The £120,000 prolongation head has no allocation sheets behind its staff costs. That is recorded as evidence needed, not as proof the figure is wrong.
- The report shows £630,000 supported, £90,000 disputed and £120,000 awaiting evidence. It records the possible explanations for the rate table, rather than accusing anyone of bad faith.
The reported position
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Claimed | £840,000 |
| Supported | £630,000 |
| Disputed | £90,000 |
| Awaiting evidence | £120,000 |
The outcome
The subcontractor asks for the allocation sheets and opens the discussion at £630,000 instead of rejecting the counterclaim as a whole.