Qs Lanre 👷🏾‍♂️

I think there are a few things worth considering regarding this issue. First, Clients need to understand when it comes to construction, it’s not same as just paying a vendor for a service. It’s more technical. And I once said it, Contractors are in business to make profits, and some will do whatever they can to maximise those profits. My concern is with understanding the implications of the situation and identifying the most practical way to resolve it. The said contractor being a fraudulent person or not isn’t even the issue right now, it has happened. What can we learn from it? Now, the client has already conducted a physical assessment through an independent QS. But what happens if the contractor challenges that assessment and presents a different QS report? Construction cost assessment is technical. A competent QS can examine the work executed, verify quantities, assess material costs, quality and rates, review expenditure records, and provide a professional opinion on the value of the work. The contractor can also engage a QS to defend the expenditure and explain the circumstances surrounding the incomplete project. But, the consultant can never even ascertain the quality and quantity of materials that have gone into the project. The question then becomes: which assessment is better supported by the evidence, and what did both parties actually agree to? Remember, proving that money was spent does not automatically establish that it was spent unreasonably or that the client is entitled to compensation. Likewise an independent assessment showing that the value of the work is below the amount paid does not, by itself, settle every question about contractual liability or the amount recoverable. This is particularly important if there is no formal written contract. The parties may have to establish their agreement through payment records, messages, drawings, quotations, agreed specifications, site instructions, and other available evidence. This is why I believe the parties should seriously consider a negotiated settlement before committing to lengthy litigation. The contractor was wrong to even block the client. Since an independent assessment has already been conducted, the next step could be to share and discuss the findings, identify the precise areas of disagreement, and determine whether a joint review by both parties’ QSs can narrow the issues. If negotiation fails, mediation may be worth considering. Arbitration may also be an option if a valid arbitration agreement applies. But Litigation? It’ll waste alot of time, effort and money. It’s not that straightforward simply because an independent QS has assessed the project. The contractor’s evidence, the scope of the agreement, the reasons for non completion, and the applicable law will all matter. My bigger concern is the original decision to pay the entire contract sum without adequate safeguards. Why should a client expose themselves to this level of risk in the first place? Construction payments should ordinarily be linked to properly assessed work, agreed milestones, or carefully documented advance-payment arrangements with appropriate protections. The scope, specifications, payment terms, variation procedures, completion obligations, and dispute-resolution process should be clearly established before work begins. The lesson is not that clients should avoid taking contractors to court. It is that clients should protect themselves before construction begins, and when disputes arise, they should understand the technical and legal realities before deciding how to proceed. @IamJomar_J @MogajiofLagos @HaadiJimoh @Arcfunmi @lanrycool @Layemie001 Habeeb. O. O. ConstructionPM