Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we finalise the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Provisional Sum

4 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2005-10-19 08:16
Mohammed Irfan Sh...
User offline. Last seen 11 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 44
Groups: None
Hi Friends,

i am facing a dillema at my project. We have a nominated subcontractor for Post Tension Works. The letter of Nomination says the contract is for Post Tensioning works included in Bill of Quantities. Similarly another clause specifies that the work to comply with the tender documents for Post Tension Works. This makes it clear that the nomination is for design, supply, supervision & installation of the system. Our contract is made on this basis.

Now the problem is Consultant is changing the architectural drawing at the last moment and virtually leading to suspension of our work for at least three phases. At the point of submission of Notice of Claim, the consultant comments that since the design is in our scope, the claim for EOT stops at the furnish of Architectural drawings. And the revised PT drawings are submitted via us as shop drawing submittals and consultant claims he has 15 days for approval or commenting for revise & resubmit from the submission date.

Our point of argument is a clause that says `any part of permanent works designed by the contractor shall be submitted to the engineer for approval.` We claim that our EOT claim can be effective upto approval of the drawing by the consultant.

Another point of argument from our side is `Our scope of design is limited to Tender Drawings only and any changes with respect to tender drawings is redesign and We can forward claim for that.`

So Friends. Where do i stand
Pull me Out

Irfan
Top

Replies

Mon, 2005-10-31 06:20
#1
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Irfan,

Stuart is correct and my comment only relates to the recovery of the Engineers approval period.

As you state the changes were last minute, I assume that the design has been submitted and approved prior to the changes being instructed. If so, the Engineer has had his 15 days once, which was the period allowed in your programme for approval(of course you allowed it!). He can not have another 15 days if the reason he requires it is of his own making.

Your claim for delay therefore should rightly include any subsequent period over and above the original approval period as long as that period is caused by the actions of the Engineer.
Top
Mon, 2005-10-31 05:34
#2
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 12 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None
Irfan,

If the Main Contractor has the overall responsibility for the design of the PT work, (which I expect would be the case!), then I suggest that you are also entitled to be compensated for the time and costs related to anything in that design work that is changed by the Engineer.

Put simply: if the Engineer alters the design of the Works, whether or not it includes the PT work, the Main Contractor should be able to claim for the additional time and money related to the engineering, procurement and construction work that flows from the changes as instructed.

Hope this helps,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com
Top
Fri, 2005-10-21 00:08
#3
Mohammed Irfan Sh...
User offline. Last seen 11 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 44
Groups: None
Hi stuart,

Well you provided an answer to me in your question.

The comments of the consultant in this matter is one sentence,’Main contractor is responsible for design and installation of post tension work as agreed in the letter of nomination.’ Any design for post tension work is in your scope.
Actually during tendering period, consultant has provided us the drawings from another of the project which is same in design except for basements.( the project is being done by us)
We have already commented to the consultant specifying that all revisions constitutes redesign of slab which is not our scope and we deserve for claim.
Well any comments?

Regards
irfan
Top
Thu, 2005-10-20 10:26
#4
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 12 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None
Irfan,

I am trying to get my head around your dilemma, but I am having some difficulty in so doing based on the information that you have supplied.

Am I correct in thinking that the Consultant’s view is that your entitlement to EOT only applied to your engineering/design works, and that you have no entitlement to time thereafter? If so, I would suggest that the Consultant is wrong, if for no other reason that it does not take into account the late start of the PT work!!

It may be that the changed PT work itself will take no longer to execute and complete than that originally foreseen (I cannot say from the details so far), but to my mind there is a likely delay in the start of the PT work caused by the (late?) change required by the Consultant, and this late start – if it swallows up all your float and impacts the CP – should entitle you to some additional time, in addition to that caused by the change to the engineering/design work.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com
Top