(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 All,
Seeking some advice with regards to an EOT that has been submitted by a Contractor.
The Contractor has impacted the Baseline schedule with employer culpable events to demonstrate his entitlement to an extension of time.
By impacting the baseline with numerous employer events (individually), the Contractor relies upon the event with the greatest impact to justify his EOT.
The Contractor has quoted various court cases such as Henry Boot v Malmaison (1999) as justification to EOT regardless of his own delays.
The Contractor has not claimed for costs related to the delays, prolongation etc
is it possible to rebutt a Contractors claim for time only when he has submitted a delay analysis presented as above.
I feel concurrency is a very Grey area and it may be the case that the Contractor was already in delay prior to any of the Employer events although this cannot be established through the Contractors present analysis.
Thanks in advance
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Mike
great stuff thanks, you're right, essentially he's presented an As Built versus As Planned and does not set out cause and effect.
Again many thanks
Hi John
The contractor must demonstrate cause and effect for every event that he relies upon - if not then it is a global claim.
Cause and effect cannot be demonstrated on an excell sheet.
It appears that what has been presented is in reality an As Planned v As Built analysis which by definition IS a global claim.
I suggest that you require the contractor to present his analysis based on the approved baseline programme showing clear cause and effect for each event - including the contractor's own delays.
When this is presnted you can check the theoretcical impacted dates against your own As Built records.
There are three possible results for each impacted delay which:
1. Ends before the As Built end - in which case something else caused the delay and by implication it is the contractor at fault.
2. Sits more or less on the As Built dates - in which case the contractor's case has been reaonably demostrated.
3. Projects beyond the As Built end in which case any entitlement ends at the As Built end - this also shows that the baseline relied upon does not reflect the way the work actually progressed and therefore is not fit for delay analysis until it has been corrected.
A Time Impact Analysis is the only analysis method that sets out to represent true cause and effect and this is what will be required eventually if the contractor is up to it.
Ask him to buy my ebook principle of Delay Analysis from my website www.expertdelayanalysis.com.
It will be £25.00 well spent.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi guys
Thanks for the responses
Mike, thanks for taking the time, i have a few more questions/points
The Contractor has implies that he has impacted the baseline with dates taken from the As Built schedule although he has not demosntrated this in his analysis as all his impacts are presented graphically on Excel rather than through the use of programmes meaning its difficult to tie it back to Activity ID's etc
At this time the Contractor is only claiming for time and no costs although he has inferred that a Cost claim will follow.
Obviously a rebuttal for cost and Time would be much easier based on the impacted as planned method but as it stands the Contractor is only seeking time.
So bar carrying my own TIA can i still rebutt the Contractors claim based on what he has presented?
Thanks again for any advice
Hi John
Extensions of time is a seperate exercise to that of Recovery of costs.
The Costs claim will follow the award of EoT when concurrency becomes an important factor.
The Contractor has presented an Impacted as Planned delay analysis which is not reccomended for a forensic analysis - only for work in progress.
The theoretical impact of delay can be easily defeated with As Built information if it shows that the impacted end dates of impacted tasks do not correspond with what actually happened on site.
This is the first layer of defence.
The second is to demonstrate that the baseline programme is flawed.
You need to remember that Henry Boot lost the Malmaison case. (I was in their office when the appeal result was announced)
If they are quoting the SCL Protocol (2002) that only Employer delay events should be impacted then that has been overtaken by later rulings on concurrency.
You should require a fully detailed Time Impact delay analysis with reference to the as Built information so that you can make a properly reasoned award.
That said you must remeber that if the Employer delayed the works then an extension of time must be awarded otherwise time will be at large in favour of the Contractor.
I would advise that you read John Marrin's SCL paper on concurrency.
Best regards
Mike Testro
John,
I can assume that the Contractor may not be aware of his right for compensation or either they may not know how to prepare the Cost claim due to them.
The way they present their TIA (individually) is the right move.
Regards,
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies