A BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE AS BUILT METHOD

Posted in another thread but applicable to this one.



If you’ve just read the recent Mirant Asia v Ove Arup case from the TCC, don’t go running away with the idea that it applies to EoT’s. The case was an assessment of damages, not an EoT case and the ‘dominant cause’ theory has often been used to assess damages – but has not been used as a basis to award an EoT. The wording of that case is very confusing, it can be read as applying to EoT’s, it can be read as not applying!!!! The judge uses the terms ‘critical delay’ and ‘dominant cause of delay’ in nearly the same breath. I’ve only read the judgment twice and wouldn’t like to say either way although I’m tempted to say it only applies to the assessment of damages, not to the award of the extension of time.

Try:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/918.html

Where can I find a copy of the judgement?



See you

Shaju Varkey

There are a number of good comments from the judge on planning and analysis techniques. I won’t spoil it and tell you result!!!!



There is one hugely important comment at para 570 (when you get there) which I’ve been waiting for a judge to make for years.



It goes to the relative importance of evidence, (eg letters, meeting minutes, etc) and how relevant are the decisions actually taken on site in a retrospective analysis?

Clive,



I’ve now read the judgment several times and I’m still not sure whether he’s trying to say the dominant cause of delay or the critical delay is what to take notice of.



He seems to use the two in the same context.



Any thoughts?

All,



Is the ABCP method a static analysis? As i understand it, ABCP analysis consists of window analysis and float mapping multiple critical paths.



What does the ’new school’ consist of?



Cheers,



Oliver

As it happens, one of the latest:



Mirant Asia-Pacific (Construction) Hong Kong Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners [2007] EWHC 918, TCC



See paras 567 to 577, but others as well



It’s not an EoT case so don’t get carried away with the rest of the judgment.

Hi Shac,



First of all, its very important why Consultants need a CRITICAL PATH as per the UPDATED Program. The critical path must have changed so many times, during the course of the project, and their planning engineer can just filter d LONGEST PATH from the program submitted by you.



But, if they need this new critical path FOR CLOSE MONITORING and CONTROLLING of the project, so that they know what r d things that need to be closely monitored. There r so many stakeholders for the project. Even if one doesn’t perform, critical path may change. Consultant would like to know in this case what are the critical activities for which they are responsible. It can be approval of drawings, material sample approval and provisonal sum items and so on.



You get this new critical path, once you update the program say after every one month. So, u hav all d stuff ready, its the question of submitting the same. But, u must be submitting the updated program every month and their planning engineer can filter the longest path. Can’t they?



For me, this is something called as PROGRESSIVE ELABORATION. The SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT PLAN developed in the initial stages, gets updated as the project progresses.



Job of a planning engineer doesn’t finishes once u prepare the cost and schedule baseline. Mitigated measures shud b reflected in the program for the culpable delays.



Continous monitoring gives the project team insight into the health of the project, and identifies any areas that can require special attention.



So, according to me (based on some little experience gained over last few years) its always beneficial - both for contractor and consultant - to monitor the project based on the As-Built Programme.



Cheers,



Raviraj A Bhedase