(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.
Hi Guys,
The Contract Duartion is 23 December 2009 - 30 April 2012. The Employer is using FIDIC 1999. When I joined them in February 2012, I start notifying the Engineers regarding the delay and disruption at site in monthly basis. Then, I send Interim EOT submission at early week of April 2012. The Engineers reply to me rejected because we did not do as per Sub Clause 20.1, he is correct, we did not notify him within 28 days when delay occurs. The event is NOC from third party authority, it occurs in Nov 2011. The event is stil continuing up to date. I want to know if there a chance to use determination?or other ways? The Entitlement Program I send is rejected as well (30 April 2012 - 29 September 2012), but the Engineers insist to use it the Weekly Meeting as reference. Why they reject and they want to use it in our weekly progress meeting? Now, theres another event, the 4 roads are on hold. I give notification yesterday and follow the process of submitting EOT in Fidic 1999. Please advise.
Thanking you,
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Dear Mr. Mike Testro,
This is beauty of this forum that new and inexperienced planners like me can have the fruits of the experience and hardship of the seniors, thanx to Planning Planet team.
Cheers.
Tanveer
Hi Mervyline
Only if you are using asta Powerproject.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
Thank you!
For update, they instructed me to revise the EOT and then go ahead as per instruction in Clause 20.1 fidic 1999.
Is there any chance for me to send you my submission of EOT rev.0?????.......;)
Regards,
Hi CH
Regarding the As Built it depends on who has the most accurate records.
You can easily defend a Time Impact analysis by showing that the contractor's As Built data is wrong.
The other defence is to destroy his baseline programme by pointing out the shortcomings.
Remember that it is easire to defend an incoming claim than to prosecute one.
However any rejection has to be based on sound reason and logic or you may end up with a time at large situation.
A lot depends on the arbitrator but in a formal hearing both sides will promote their case and the arbitrator will decide what is a just and reasonable award.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks Mike,
Correct me if I am wrong
My understand of Impact as plan is an approved method but least recommend compaed to the other 3.
I heard that it also depend on the arbitartor, some arbitrator does not take into concurrent delay, it require both parties to make independent review before they make report. Nonetheless, it should still be done on as built, not impact as plan.
WE do not agree with contractor as built and building our own as built, I feel that is making things complicated. But do you feel that appropiate, as we are analysising from 2 different as built.
Hi CH
An Impacted as Planned analysis should not be used for a forensic situation - so it can be rejected on that basis alone.
Other reasons for rejection include:
1. It is completeley theoretical and does not reflect the situation on the site.
2. It does not compare to the As Built data that you have.
3. It does not take into account concurrent contractors delays.
One practical excercise that you can do is carry out the same analysis on the same programme but with all the contractor's delays impacted.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi,
I have a contractor who is applying EOT based on Impact-As -Plan.
The project is already about 1 year since commencement. The IAP analysis is very bias and I totally disagree with the way it is perform on the baseline, it does not take into consideration of any as built information.
I am trying to find reason to refute this claim.
Kindly assist on common reason to refute IAP claim.
I am thinking that the programme does not display good scheduling technqiue, excessive use of SS logic. And the procurement lead time is exaggerated. It is not detail and links are too messy.
In additional contractor shows no intention of mitigation and with no due diligence.
I believe it is more appropiate to use äs-built analysis, and believe the contractor avoid using it as they know an as built analysis will weaken their entitlement claim.
Hi Mervilene
The Engineer is doing what Engineers' always do - try to avoid issuing an eoT award by way of lack of formal notice.
The tactic rarely succeeds in court particularly when everyone knows what the delay is and the current cause and effect..
You need to draft a letter of notice using such words as - "your failure to issue a reasonable extension of time is a clear Act of Prevention which - if not remedied soon - will place time at large on the Contract"
You can also consider issuing a notice of Arbitration.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies