It is more or less an established principle within building industry that the Contractor cannot claim extra time if the relevant event caused no critical delay to the final completion date (say for example a traditional Contract procured under FIDIC Red Book). Here the risk profile is more balanced between the Employer and the Contractor.

The scenario is different in the case of EPC LSTK Contracts.
Here the EPC Contractor takes full responsibility for the engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning and performance of the facility. The risk profile is not balanced between the Purchaser (Company) and the EPC Contractor. The Contractor carries far greater risk (schedule, budget, quality, performance, EHS..............)

If an employer culpable risk event occurs which results in wiping out 50% of the schedule flexibility, I am trying to think that the EPC Contractor has a right to claim for that lost flexibility so that he can regain his original risk profile or the risk profile that existed prior to the occurrence of the event.

Hi All,

My question is specific to EPC / LSTK Process Plant Contracts.

Because of the fact that the EPC Contractor’s risk profile is far greater compared to traditinal re-measurable contracts, is it logical to claim that the entire benifit of the float should be with the Contractor?

If the argument is accepted, then the difficulty is that he can claim additinal time for an excusable event, even if it is not causing critical slippage of the Turnover Date.

This is something which current industry Standards (SCL - Delay and Disruption Protocol or AACE Recommended Practice for Forensic Scheduling)does not accept; (ie. Contractor can claim EOT for an excusable event only if the event delays or likley to delay the final completion date).