Posted in another thread but applicable to this one.

If you’ve just read the recent Mirant Asia v Ove Arup case from the TCC, don’t go running away with the idea that it applies to EoT’s. The case was an assessment of damages, not an EoT case and the ‘dominant cause’ theory has often been used to assess damages – but has not been used as a basis to award an EoT. The wording of that case is very confusing, it can be read as applying to EoT’s, it can be read as not applying!!!! The judge uses the terms ‘critical delay’ and ‘dominant cause of delay’ in nearly the same breath. I’ve only read the judgment twice and wouldn’t like to say either way although I’m tempted to say it only applies to the assessment of damages, not to the award of the extension of time.

Where can I find a copy of the judgement?

See you
Shaju Varkey

Maybe we have to wait for the challenge, as this point is indeed unclear.
What I would say is this is an excellent example of the value of planning, and overides the comments that I read elswhere about it being acceptable to influence the critical path either by perception "it always run through the boiler" or by fact via manipulation of durations as in the case of Alstohm.
Reliance on a good programme prepared by an experienced planner and monitored on a monthly basis will indeed identify where things are going wrong. Manipulating a programme will only show a project in the interest of the manipulator, and an expert should be able to quickly see through it.
What also facinates me is that while great measure was placed on the possibility of acceleration neither expert attempted to prove it could or could not have been done by reference to resources. My thoughts here are particuarly applicable to concrete supply which is sighted as a limited resource but not investigated. If as Arups expert infers the acceleration could not have resulted in removal of civil works from the programme critical path a brief review of concrete demand against concrete availability may have well shown a supply defficiency.
Often experts in my opinion get bogged down in the menutia and forget the overiding resource doctrine.
I will read it all again and see what else I can see but knowing a number of the players here the project management principles adopted are no suprise to me.

Clive,

I’ve now read the judgment several times and I’m still not sure whether he’s trying to say the dominant cause of delay or the critical delay is what to take notice of.

He seems to use the two in the same context.

Any thoughts?

theres all sorts in this one and Im only up to para 150
Like what he says about the critical path.
I will return to this anon

Hi Shac,

First of all, its very important why Consultants need a CRITICAL PATH as per the UPDATED Program. The critical path must have changed so many times, during the course of the project, and their planning engineer can just filter d LONGEST PATH from the program submitted by you.

But, if they need this new critical path FOR CLOSE MONITORING and CONTROLLING of the project, so that they know what r d things that need to be closely monitored. There r so many stakeholders for the project. Even if one doesn’t perform, critical path may change. Consultant would like to know in this case what are the critical activities for which they are responsible. It can be approval of drawings, material sample approval and provisonal sum items and so on.

You get this new critical path, once you update the program say after every one month. So, u hav all d stuff ready, its the question of submitting the same. But, u must be submitting the updated program every month and their planning engineer can filter the longest path. Can’t they?

For me, this is something called as PROGRESSIVE ELABORATION. The SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT PLAN developed in the initial stages, gets updated as the project progresses.

Job of a planning engineer doesn’t finishes once u prepare the cost and schedule baseline. Mitigated measures shud b reflected in the program for the culpable delays.

Continous monitoring gives the project team insight into the health of the project, and identifies any areas that can require special attention.

So, according to me (based on some little experience gained over last few years) its always beneficial - both for contractor and consultant - to monitor the project based on the As-Built Programme.

Cheers,

Raviraj A Bhedase