(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.
A delay event was modeled/inserted into an agreed upon schedule which was updated just before the delay event’s start date; this exercise has resulted in giving a new project completion date (say 10 days later). However, the subsequent (regular) schedule update which reflects the Contractor’s actual progress (say “data date” is one month later than the impacted one) is showing new project completion date equals to 15 days later.
In the above scenario we can see that:
The impacted schedule (at the beginning of the Window) gives a delay of 10 days
The schedule update which reflects the Contractor’s actual progress (at the end of the Window) gives a delay of 15 days.
So, how would you interpret the above difference of 5 days between the impacted and the updated schedules?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Hi Ammar
First find the cause of the delay - it has to be an employer culpable relevant event - if they do not exist then it is all the contractor's fault.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
As you said that the 15 days are the contractor's default unless proved otherwise. But don't you think than we shall try to apportion the delay of 15 days since the updated schedule already contains the effect of delays caused by both parties?
If you agree with me, what method do you suggest to apportion the delay?
Hi Ammar
Your scenario states that the progress update caused 15 days delay to the programme.
By definition that delay is the contractor's default unless proved otherwise.
The 10 day delay appears to be a valid EoT event which entitles the contractor to an Extension of time.
Thus we have a concurrency issue where the 10 days EoT is underlined by a 15 day contractor delay (albeit undefined).
This is the inherent fault of a time impact analysis used when work is in progress. The contractor may accelerate future work and recover his delay and further delay events may invalidate the current 10 days delay.
While work is in progress it is a theoretical exercise so everything relies on a final determination when the work is complete.
Another possible interim scenario is that the contractor is ahead of programme - say -5 days on progress and a 15 day employers delay wipes out his hard won advantage for a 10 day EoT.
Remember that concurrency applies to allocation of costs and damages - not extension of time.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Dear Mike,
On what bases you referred the resposibility of the entire 15 days to the Contractor, he might be responsible for the last 5 days only?
Hi Ammar
The 10 days delay is the EoT entitlement but no costs
The 5 day delay is the contractor's exposure to LD's
This is why employers prefer a Time Impact Analysis (SCL definition).
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies