We've been asked by a client to provide 2 x PCR tests before visiting a site, 1 is to be done within 3 days and 1 on the day of arrival (5 days work in an enclosed site with no visitors).  What is the point of 2  PCR's in such close proximity to each other? makes no sense at all, as they will also have a lateral flow on the day too.  This is covid security gone mad surely? 

Is the client paying for these private tests?

Newspaper reports are indicating suppliers are gouging holiday makers up to £525 per test.

You only get the free NHS PCR test if you have symptoms.

I think its being rolled into the day rate, but its the reason for 2, 

Don't think - confirm - if you start adding a couple of grand for PCR testing it would be fairly obvious so highly likely to get challenged.

As with all matters construction - if the client asks and is willing to pay (for matters that are NOT illegal) invariably the client gets.

Presumably the client has issued some instruction / reasoning. If not ask them for clarification.

the symptom development means that you need a test 3 days apart...1 as baseline and 1 as confirmation.

Unfortunately, when it's a requirement put in place for the client irrespective of whether it's sensible, costly or an environmental issue you don't have a choice. 

On the Test and Trace and isolation question, all the written advice suggests it's compulsory but the Health Secretary and various other news outlets have suggested it's advisory only. Most alerts come with a notification of how long you need to isolate as well which suggests that it's compulsory until we are told differently.

Craig - the usual rule is that if the client gets what the client wants subject to paying for what they want.

So there are two broad reasons for NOT giving the client what they want:

1. It makes somebody break a statutory requirement - you cannot contract out of your statutory duties either as client or contractor. 

   You could argue that this overkill could create more waste, and thence make it more difficult to comply with legislation, but this would probably not convince the client.

2. You can persuade the client that they don't actually want what they say they want.

Which is where clarity of the price tag and who foots the bill becomes critical. If you have a relatively standard contract, then this requirement would be a "variation" and the client should pay. If the contract allows the client to make "variations" without taking the commercial hit, then you as a contractor have a problem.

If you imagine that you were in an earlier stage in the process, i.e. bidding for the work being done, you might be in amongst say five tenderers for the work.

You could submit a compliant tender and price to do the work exactly to the client's specification but you could also submit an alternative tender in which you offer to do the work under terms which vary from the specification, including in this case avoiding doing something with no measurable value. So your price for the alternative tender would be lower than your price for the compliant tender and many clients would revisit their specification to assess whether it was unnecessarily overprescriptive.

But, having won the work, if the client says do these tests, then you probably don't have much wriggle room, except by persuasion.

However, as you have intimated this is one for the Contracts people (on both sides), who deal with the nitty gritty issues of ensuring compliance with the specification and making sure that payments are appropriate.

The NHS tells us to do many things, such as eat a healthy diet, take exercise, check various body parts on a regular basis, etc.

Doesn't make it a legal requirement!

As others have said if the client wants it and you want the work you will have to comply. PCR does appear a little over the top - have they misunderstood and actualy mean a lateral flow test? - which you can get free from chemists - or could i think i read they ran out this week due to "freedom day".

Peter G - if the client badges this as safety, as they are likely to do, then the cost will be down to the contractor and not on the client...unless you can argue additional rules or equivalancy, or indeed that it is unreasonable...

Not worth upsetting them for the price of a test...

The BBC continues to report the hokey-cokey:

Downing Street contradicts a business minister who says self-isolating when pinged by the NHS Covid-19 app should be a matter for people and employers to decide It is “crucial” to self-isolate when told and business should be supporting employees to do so, a No 10 spokesperson says Earlier, Paul Scully pointed out people should not automatically self-isolate if they are "pinged" by the app, as it is advisory

"Don't legally have to" is a very different thing from "should not"!