I agree, even if the missing procurement had float, thus keeping the original end date unchanged, the mathematics is still valid.
The start of the delay should be analyzed from the date the Owner receives the notice for delay adjusted for a reasonable period to react, say 2 weeks. The Owner is not to be punished for delays he should have been warned, at least until he is warned.
On the other hand I believe if there is an inspection that is aware of the delay and keeps quiet then for all purposes the Owner was informed, he has a representative on site.
If the contractor has missed out the procurement periods then they shoud be added in.
Any ensuing delay will be the Contractors fault and this should work as a concurent delay.
Now you can impact the delay issues and award an EoT from Contractors delay to the impacted end date.
With the Balfour v Chestermount ruling the Dot-On priciple will mean that the EoT period will run from the Contract completion date and the contractors delay will be concurrent.
This means that the contractor will get relief from LADs for the extended period but no costs for the concurrent period.
For example.
1. Original completion date is day 250.
2. Add in the missing procurement and the end date is day 300.
3. This gives a concurrent contractors delay period of 50 days (300-250).
4. Add in the employers delays and the end date is day 400.
5. This gives an EoT of 100 days (400-300).
6. The contract completion date is now day 350 (250+100)
7. The Contractor is paid 50 days costs between days 300 > 350 and gets relief from LADs.
I hope that is clear.
Best regards
Mike Testro
6. The Extension of time will be to day 350 (250+100)
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Tue, 2009-11-17 08:59
"Some courts hesitate to treat a time-bar clause as a condition precedent to a valid claim; others hold that a time-bar is inapplicable if the building contractor is entitled to make a claim for delay or disruption caused by the employer (‘the prevention principle’)."
As a Contractor I always play it safe, inform of a delay as soon as it shows. This type of clause is very common in our contracts. Although usually on the Contractor’s side I understand there are valid reasons for such clauses, the Owner must be informed to take corrective action. But in no way this means at the Baseline Schedule.
An EOT claim should reflect the actual delay that has / will be incurred because an event outside the contractors control. It is self-evident that items cannot be installed until they are procured, and cannot be procured until they are designed. Hence allowing for procurement time is entirely justified.
I dont know what form of contract this project is under, but generally the approved baseline plan is not even a contractual document, and certainly should not be used as a anything more than a starting point when assesing EOT claims.
If all you are doing when assessing EOT claims is comparing the claim schedule to the baseline, and rejecting anything that differs, you are doing a disservice to the project.
Cheers,
G
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Tue, 2009-11-17 07:14
What matter is, cause and effect, if the delay was because of errors and omissions by the designer then ask the designer for the extra costs as result of the design errors and omissions.
Procurement activities might add up to the hundreds, maybe as much as construction activities. It is not uncommon not to include those not expected to become critical, and then add them when become near critical or critical. The responsibility of the Contractor is to warn the Owner as soon as he discover the delay or possibility, it does not matter if was included or not in the original CPM, as a matter of fact most delay activities are not included in the original CPM as you cannot predict the future.
The Designer should have an error and omissions insurance policy against which you can place the claim.
I wonder if the Contractor might have a cause of action against the Designer or even against those negligent in the evaluation of his claim.
Member for
19 years 11 months
Member for19 years11 months
Submitted by Trevor Rabey on Tue, 2009-11-17 06:39
Member for
19 years 3 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Thanks for all post.
The case is very simple
For example
In baseline
1. Approval of material 1st Jan 09
2. Installation of the same (SInce it is linked with other construction activities) 1st Apr 09.
3. in Baseline there in link FS from approval of material to installation (Missing procurement activity)
4. There was many cuncurrent delay form contractors side resulted installltion also delayed.
5. Material approval delayed due to design change 1st Jun-09.
6. Consumed the float between material approval & installation resulted entilement only 3 months.
7. Now contractor asking to add an activity of 2 months dur. form material approval for procurement. (Which i refused coz it was nto inbaseline)
Practically speaking there must be a duration for procurement.
But what FIDIC says
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Mike,
I agree, even if the missing procurement had float, thus keeping the original end date unchanged, the mathematics is still valid.
The start of the delay should be analyzed from the date the Owner receives the notice for delay adjusted for a reasonable period to react, say 2 weeks. The Owner is not to be punished for delays he should have been warned, at least until he is warned.
On the other hand I believe if there is an inspection that is aware of the delay and keeps quiet then for all purposes the Owner was informed, he has a representative on site.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Hi Raviraj
If the contractor has missed out the procurement periods then they shoud be added in.
Any ensuing delay will be the Contractors fault and this should work as a concurent delay.
Now you can impact the delay issues and award an EoT from Contractors delay to the impacted end date.
With the Balfour v Chestermount ruling the Dot-On priciple will mean that the EoT period will run from the Contract completion date and the contractors delay will be concurrent.
This means that the contractor will get relief from LADs for the extended period but no costs for the concurrent period.
For example.
1. Original completion date is day 250.
2. Add in the missing procurement and the end date is day 300.
3. This gives a concurrent contractors delay period of 50 days (300-250).
4. Add in the employers delays and the end date is day 400.
5. This gives an EoT of 100 days (400-300).
6. The contract completion date is now day 350 (250+100)
7. The Contractor is paid 50 days costs between days 300 > 350 and gets relief from LADs.
I hope that is clear.
Best regards
Mike Testro
6. The Extension of time will be to day 350 (250+100)
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Raviraj,
Thanks for the reference, very good indeed.
"Some courts hesitate to treat a time-bar clause as a condition precedent to a valid claim; others hold that a time-bar is inapplicable if the building contractor is entitled to make a claim for delay or disruption caused by the employer (‘the prevention principle’)."
As a Contractor I always play it safe, inform of a delay as soon as it shows. This type of clause is very common in our contracts. Although usually on the Contractor’s side I understand there are valid reasons for such clauses, the Owner must be informed to take corrective action. But in no way this means at the Baseline Schedule.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
18 years 5 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Hi Rafael / santosh,
as far as ur point of warning the owner by the contractor is concerned, i recently found a very good paper by Hamish Lal.
http://www.scl.org.uk/node/619
Title: The Rise and Rise of Time-bar Clauses for Contractors Claims: Issues for construction arbitrators
Author: Hamish Lal
Cheers,
Member for
16 years 7 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Santhos,
An EOT claim should reflect the actual delay that has / will be incurred because an event outside the contractors control. It is self-evident that items cannot be installed until they are procured, and cannot be procured until they are designed. Hence allowing for procurement time is entirely justified.
I dont know what form of contract this project is under, but generally the approved baseline plan is not even a contractual document, and certainly should not be used as a anything more than a starting point when assesing EOT claims.
If all you are doing when assessing EOT claims is comparing the claim schedule to the baseline, and rejecting anything that differs, you are doing a disservice to the project.
Cheers,
G
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
What matter is, cause and effect, if the delay was because of errors and omissions by the designer then ask the designer for the extra costs as result of the design errors and omissions.
Procurement activities might add up to the hundreds, maybe as much as construction activities. It is not uncommon not to include those not expected to become critical, and then add them when become near critical or critical. The responsibility of the Contractor is to warn the Owner as soon as he discover the delay or possibility, it does not matter if was included or not in the original CPM, as a matter of fact most delay activities are not included in the original CPM as you cannot predict the future.
The Designer should have an error and omissions insurance policy against which you can place the claim.
I wonder if the Contractor might have a cause of action against the Designer or even against those negligent in the evaluation of his claim.
Member for
19 years 11 monthsRE: Not in baseline asking for EOT
Accept their explanation and give them the 195 days?