Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASA@ian_turner Your question about using SCO approval instead of OCO is understandable. The reason we use both is that Emaar’s change-management process requires two distinct approvals: an estimated internal valuation and a final contractor adjustment.Our configured labels are:PCO → RFC: Request for ChangeOCO → CPA: Contract Price AdjustmentRFQ → DVVO: Determination of the Value of Variation OrderSCO → RCPA: Recommended Contract Price AdjustmentFor contractor changes, the process is:RFC: Obtain preliminary approval for the proposed change.CPA: The Cost Consultant prepares the estimated valuation for Emaar’s internal approval. This amount is not disclosed to the contractor.DVVO: The contractor’s submission is assessed and negotiated with input from the relevant parties. Because this involves considerable back-and-forth, we manage those exchanges through Correspondence. We use RFQ/DVVO to record the agreed amount and supporting signed document.RCPA: The final agreed adjustment is submitted for approval and subsequently used in payment applications.We therefore already use SCO approval for RCPA. However, it cannot simply replace CPA: the estimated internal amount and the final agreed contractor amount may differ. The approval authority also depends on whether RCPA exceeds the previously approved CPA.Regarding your funding question, the OCO does not represent additional funds received by Emaar from an upstream client. Emaar is the owner. We use it for internal approval of the estimated change value against a downstream contract.There is also an interim payment requirement. While final agreement and approval are pending, payment for approved CPA works may be assessed based on the contractor’s submission and/or work completed on site, subject to an internal cap of 70% of the approved CPA value. This is a ceiling, not an automatic entitlement. In our implementation, an early Draft/Open RCPA provides the payment route, while the Cost Consultant applies the cap internally. The contractor does not see the CPA amount or the cap.The distinction becomes particularly important for consultant changes. These follow Consultant CPA approval and issuance of a formal Variation Order, without a separate RCPA business stage. Yet in our current configuration, an approved OCO cannot be included directly in a Cost Payment Application; we need an SCO. We therefore create an RCPA/SCO solely to make the approved consultant variation payable, without a separate RCPA approval.There are also contractor cases where a fully substantiated CPA raised after TOC does not require a separate RCPA, creating a similar payment-routing question.Returning to the numbering request: in our implementation, each CPA/OCO contains cost items belonging to one downstream contract. We need its number to include that contract’s code and maintain a separate sequence per contract.
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Re: Cost Payment Appllication - Custom Invoice | 0 | 12.63 | 22-10-2026 |
| 2 | To include currency selection for HCVO Approved in Potential Change page | 0 | 7.84 | 14-10-2026 |
| 3 | ИИ в «Экзон» сам сравнивает версии смет по наименованию позиций | 0 | 10 | 21-09-2026 |
| 4 | ИИ в «Экзон» сам сравнивает версии смет по наименованию позиций | 0 | 10 | 21-09-2026 |
| 5 | The “Once 8(a), Always 8(a)–or HUBZone, SDVOSB, or WOSB” Rule, Where Are We Now? | 0 | 9.5 | 07-05-2026 |
| 6 | Re: Reviews and Issues | 0 | 4.07 | 22-10-2026 |
| 7 | Back to Basics: Novation Agreements (and Name Changes) | 0 | 8.62 | 20-05-2026 |
| 8 | Re: Symbol Builder No Generic In Horizontal Parent | 0 | 5 | 18-07-2026 |
| 9 | What's New: Sample Content | 0 | 17.3 | 09-09-2026 |
| 10 | What's New: Redesigned Product Definition Homepage | 0 | 13.04 | 09-09-2026 |