(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.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
In order for the schedule to be part of the contract documents it must have been included in the contract prior to signing the documents. It is a contract document when the Owner requires you to follow a pre-determined schedule and icludes the same with the contract documents prior to signing the same, it is a deliverable when it is to be submitted after signing of the contract.
An unapproved Master Programme is not the same as an approved one as the approval means there is an agreement but the submitted even if not approved might represent a valid claim and perhaps a pre-requisite to any claim.
You demonstrate your EOT claim from the difference between the updated schedule to a DD just prior to the impact and the impacted schedule. The updated schedule must include all prior delaying events. It is a procedure done in sequential order. After a few such changes usually the baseline is updated.
If Baseline Schedules are defined on the contract documents as an agreed schedule its submission/acceptance can represent an implicit change in the contract, this implication might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as common law (interpretations by the courts) do vary. You might waive your claim to previous delay events if you skip some in the sequential submission.
The baseline when defined by the contract documents to represent an agreed schedule can be binding, therefore when there is not an agreement with regard to some or all pending EOTs it might remain unchanged pending the resolution of a claim or pending an order to keep required schedule that might represent a basis for constructive acceleration. Be aware not submitting a revised schedule if required per contract documents might be cause for a breach of contract.
One common misconception is that the delaying event must have finished in order to start the claim. For long delays you should start your claim using short discrete durations in sequential order, otherwise the contemporaneous meaning is lost and the TIA procedure or any other contemporaneous procedure is no longer valid, then other more complex delay procedures "forensic" will be appropriate.
The following or similar TIA procedure is commonly used at home in our contracts, http://ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
Keep on continuous record your claim as soon as possible, keep the contemporaneous requirements valid otherwise the claim might become very complicated. I believe any forum will see with good eyes your actions to keep all parties informed of the impacts of your claim as it continuously add up.
1.Contractor’s Master Programme (Baseline Programme) - Really depends on the form of Contract (not the most helpful answer). However it is more common that it is not part of the Contract document itself but a contract deliverable to be approved within a set period of time.
2.Approved Master Programme and Unapproved Master Programme - They do not have the same status. The answer lies in the name. "Unapproved".
3.Does project must have an approved Master Programme - Again this would depend of the requirements of the Contract under which you are carrying out the work.
4.Revised programme instead of an Approved Master Programme - You demostrate you EOT from the approved master programme and submit the revised as part of the demostration of the EOT.
5.What if there the approved Master Programme cannot reflect the actual site situation - It is your job (or somebodies) to demostrate how the programme has changed to the actual situation. If you cannot demostrate this to any reasonable degree then your EOT claim will in all lielyhood fail.
Hi KS,
3.Does project must have an approved Master Programme? What if not?
Every project must have and approved one. It was approved because your client agreed to the schedule you submitted otherwise it will be returned to you with some comments to rectify it.
4.Could the Contractor use a revised programme instead of an approved Master Programme for EOT claims? If not, why?
Your revised schedule must be approved also before you can use it. As what our fellow PP member cited, as much as possible, your schedule should be based on the last working schedule from your claim.
5.What if there the approved Master Programme cannot reflect the actual site situation, would it make EOT claims become invalid?
Normally, your claim should reflect the actual site situation. EOT will be invalid or not to be approved if you cannot point out the impact of the Cause and Effect of the delay in your activities you were claiming.
Cheers,
JEFF
Hi KS,
Mike is quite right with regards to your question # 1, The programme is usually required by the contract but not contract binding and normally not part of the contract documents.
Best regards,
Daniel
Hi KS
Be very careful if your contract programme has been incorporated as a Contract Document - usually they are not.
Check the list of Contract Documents and if the programme is in the list then you may have to follow a different procedure.
If for instance the client issues an instruction to change the works and the change cannot be accomodated within the "Contract Programme" then he has to issue another instruction to change the programme or he will be in breach of contract and time may well be at large.
Best practice is do not incorporate the programme into the contract - keep it outside and flexible.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi KS,
The majority of the contracts I have been involved with requires the contractor to submit a programme and get approval within 30 to 60 days from contract award or from notice to proceed, In some cases, payment will be withheld if you did not meet this requirement. So the answer to your 1st question is yes the programme is part of the contract and required by the contract, however, the contents of the programme even if approved by the Engineer may not be necessarily contract binding. Think of it as your road map to a successful completion of the project, however, your road map may not be the most effecient way to get there.
Reference to your 2nd question, no they do not have the same contractual status, one is approved and the other is not. A lot of this case happens when there is a mis-undertanding or there are weak parties involved in running the project. I think, if you submit a programme which is compliant to the contract requirements, there is asbolutely nothing they can do about it if you insist that this is the road map you are using and following. If they still do not approved it for some reason, you can stick to your gun and run the project without an approved programme.
If you do not have an approved programme, you can always use the unapproved programme for EOT claims, however I dont think you will get any without an approved progamme and this may lead to arbitration or legal later on. So it is necessary to keep records of the events.
Regarding your question no 5, this is were forensic people come to play so it is necessary to keep records especially the as-built programme.
Best regards
Daniel
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies