Case Note: Why a VO Submission Was Returned for Further Information

This is a fictional composite example prepared for education. It does not describe an identifiable client, project or assessment.

A contractor carried out additional work following revised information and submitted a VO containing correspondence, photographs and a quotation. The submission was returned for further information.

The return did not prove that the changed work had no value. It showed that the file did not yet present an assessable connection between instruction, scope change, quantity, rate and records.

Commercial problem

The documents existed, but they were scattered. The submission expected the assessor to determine:

• which instruction caused each item;
• what was included in the original scope;
• what had changed;
• how additions and omissions were measured;
• why the proposed rates followed the contract; and
• which records supported the work.

A large bundle is not necessarily a substantiated VO. The submission should guide the assessor through the valuation logic.

Professional framework

The February 2025 HKIS practice note describes a structured methodology: log changes, identify the instruction, quantify the change and apply the appropriate valuation basis. Contract rates should be considered where the work is of the same nature and carried out under similar circumstances. A pro-rata rate may be appropriate for similar work, while a fair or “star” rate may be required for work of a different nature. Daywork depends on the contract and the required records.

Where HKSMM4 forms part of the measurement basis, descriptions, units and deemed inclusions should be checked so that the submission does not omit or duplicate work already included in a rate.

Why the VO was returned

1. The instruction trail was incomplete

The submission referred generally to “site instruction” but did not identify the issuing person, date, drawing revision or contract communication. Verbal directions and meeting records were included without explaining their status under the contract.

Create an instruction schedule linking each VO item to the relevant instruction, revised drawing, confirmation or notice. The applicable contract determines whether a particular communication is effective.

2. Original and changed scope were not compared

The file showed the final work but not the baseline. Without the original drawing, specification or BQ description, the assessor could not see the difference.

Use a concise scope comparison:

• original requirement;
• revised requirement;
• addition;
• omission; and
• consequential work.

Marked-up drawings should use consistent references and clearly identify the measured limits.

3. The quantity build-up could not be traced

The summary listed lump-sum quantities without dimensions or locations. Photographs showed work on site but did not prove the claimed quantity.

Measurement sheets should identify drawing references, locations, dimensions, units and arithmetic. Joint measurement records should be included where available. The same item should not appear in both the measured work and a percentage allowance.

4. The rate basis skipped the contract hierarchy

The contractor attached a supplier quotation and applied mark-ups, but did not test whether a relevant contract rate existed. Conversely, using an existing rate without checking different conditions may also be inappropriate.

A rate note should state:

1. the relevant contract rate considered;
2. whether the nature and circumstances are comparable;
3. any pro-rata adjustment;
4. the basis of a new rate where needed; and
5. supporting labour, material, plant and subcontract information.

5. The evidence was not indexed to the valuation

Photographs, emails and delivery records were appended without item references. More documents increased the review burden without resolving the key questions.

Use an evidence index. Each VO item should point to the exact instruction, drawing, measurement sheet, rate analysis, photograph and correspondence relied upon.

QS review framework

1. Establish the contractual communication and notice requirements.
2. Create an instruction and change log.
3. Compare original and revised scope.
4. Measure additions and omissions using the contract measurement basis.
5. Test the rate hierarchy and document the selected valuation method.
6. Index the supporting records to each item.
7. Prepare a response matrix addressing previous assessment comments.
8. Reconcile the VO summary to earlier submissions and the project VO log.

Fictional example

A ceiling subcontractor is instructed to change access-panel sizes and add framing after coordination revisions. Its first submission includes a supplier quotation and photographs but no original reflected ceiling plan, no marked-up revised plan and no measured omission for the original panels.

The revised file adds the instruction reference, compares the two drawing revisions, measures the omitted and added panels, identifies additional framing and explains which contract rates can be used or adjusted. The photographs are labelled by location and linked to the measured items. The submission is now capable of item-by-item assessment, even though the parties may still disagree on particular rates.

Contractor checklist

• Is each item linked to an identifiable instruction or event?
• Does the file show original scope and changed scope?
• Are additions and omissions both measured?
• Can every quantity be traced to a drawing, location or site record?
• Has the contract rate hierarchy been considered?
• Are daywork records compliant with the contract, if daywork is relied upon?
• Does each document have an item reference?
• Have previous comments been answered directly?

When professional support may help

Consider a VO review when submissions are repeatedly returned, instructions are spread across several channels, measurement cannot be reconciled, or the proposed rate basis is disputed. Commercial QS support can organize the assessment route and identify missing substantiation; it cannot determine legal entitlement or guarantee agreement.