Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

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.

Late agreement of contract programme.

8 replies [Last post]
Thu, 2008-07-31 05:56
Ian Mackrell
User offline. Last seen 10 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 27
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Gents,

I thought this might be the best forum to post this question.

I have come in late to a project to asses the contractors programme, which has been agreed with progress in. With this the actual duration of the activities are now greater than the original. Is the difference between the actual dates the contract duration or is it the original durations as the contract duration? (this effects my EVM reports)

Also, with accepting this progressed programme (approx. 70% of construction complete), are we also accepting any delay claims prior to the data date?

Cheers
Top

Replies

Thu, 2008-07-31 17:47
#1
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Ian,

Another grey area is if the contractor has given notice within time but hasn’t included the compensation event in the latest Accepted programme ie, one submitted since the notice – is he allowed to go back and insert the events in a previous programme when it happened or only entitled to the delay, (if any), demonstrated by his next submitted programme?
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 12:39
#2
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Ian,

NEC - proactive planning and delay notices, that’s what it’s all about and trying to achieve.

Glad I was clear enough - but if honest, that is the certainly the contracts intention, if you were a contractor their are a few possible arguments to help, but we’ll have to wait until it gets to court to find out if they would suceed, (to do with the validity of the time bar - I think a court would enforce it these days).

Andy
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 10:27
#3
Ian Mackrell
User offline. Last seen 10 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 27
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Thanks Andrew,

You have made it perfectly clear.
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 09:54
#4
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Ian,

Under NEC the current Accepted programme is THE ONLY relevant programme.

The contractor should update the programme as per Cl32 and submit the changed programme for acceptance.

If he hasn’t given previous notice as per Cl61.3, (note eight week period) he can go and whistle for anything that happened to the left of the currently Accepted programme data date.

If he has given notice and has since updated the Accepted programme then any delays should have been shown in the new programme. (Cl32) If no delays are shown then the contractor, (the contractor writes the programme), is saying that no delays are occuring due to currently known compensation events.

Strangely this is the second conversation about retrospective analysis and the NEC3 I’ve had in as many days.

Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 09:41
#5
Ian Mackrell
User offline. Last seen 10 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 27
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Thanks Andrew,

I have looked at what you say, and i am not sure it answers my question.

The contract programme still has two conflicting durations.

I would appreciate it if would expand please.

Cheers mate
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 08:33
#6
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Ian

The last part of Cl 11.2 answers most your question, (subject in part to notice provisions).
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 07:44
#7
Ian Mackrell
User offline. Last seen 10 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 27
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Hi Mike,

The contract is NEC3.

I should have explained more. The programme had Mandatory constraints on them as completion milestones because ’that’s how they have always done it’, therefore the activities did not affect them, luckily there was a good amount of float behind them at the time. This has afforded the contractor to build the delays into the activities contract programme as progressed (i doubt purposely) wihtout delaying the project, so everything looked fine for the client at the time of the agreement.

Now, the contractor is claiming delays for certain activities which occured before the data date of the contract programme.

I have stripped the progress out, but still leaves the question of which duration i use, the original or do i stick to the dates (which most of them where actual at the time), thus increasing the duration of the activity and allowing the delay claim?

Hope this is more clear.
Top
Thu, 2008-07-31 07:02
#8
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Ian

What is your form of contract.

The Contract Period is what is set down in the Contract.

The Contract Programme should - at least have the same start date - end date - duration - as the Contract.

If the progressed programme is now longer than the contract period - the contractor is in delay - provided that the progress is accurate of course.

Let me have more details please.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top