(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
i have illustrated one example here, can someone comments and advise the concurrent delays- contractor not asking prolongatin cost , however penalites will be reduced if concurrency in the contract.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Hi Baila
Read Jeremy Fearnsides recent article on LinkedIn regarding concurrency using FIDIC red book in the Middle East jurisdiction.
Best regards
Mike T.
Dear sir
Thanks for your response, i read the contents of this case.
The parties agree on certain bespoke amendments to JCT Design clause 2.25.13(b) and hence award of extension of time was dealt accordingly.
But FIDIC conditions of contract does not have such requirements under the contract. The risk of concurrent delay is not allocated in the contract document , is it fair to consider the dominat cause approach and not to award time to contractor for the delay appear concurrent to employer.
TThanks
Bilal
Hi Bialla
If you are in the UK then the current ruling is that the contractor gets EoT for week 24 plus costs.
He pays LAD's for wekk 16 to 23 and no costs.
This is because of the new ruling on North Midland v Cyden which brought us back to the dominant delay principle.
Other more sensible countries will apply an apprtionment of the different delays - more or less as you have shown in your bottom line.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies