How to calculate acceleration cost.?
Forum Sponsor
Top Posters
Julian Pegg
1 posts
Peter Nagy
2 posts
Raymund de Laza
17 posts
Syed_Asad
0 posts
Tony Greyvenstein
0 posts
Ahmed Al-Jubouri
13 posts
Umar Alvi
3 posts
Sibusiso Mahlalela
0 posts
Michael Samanyayi
3 posts
Simon Gumede
0 posts
Hi
Mr.Basheer !
EOT is granted,but on what grounds.
Why its need to know that "Cost" for the EOT to be calculated based on that particular way,not in traditional way of using BQ rates.
If you can provide some more details about EOT,may we find better way to bring your Client into right track.
Cheers
My apologies Mr.James for the typo error on your name. ( This is terrible thing to do - to misspell the name )
Thank you very much Mr.Gorden and Mr.Games.
EOT in principle accepted so there will be no question of a penalty. They are not finalizing the cost. We have agreed for the acceleration and the new completion is later than the contract completion but earlier than the EOT completion.
Yes taking the complexity of this matter our HO claims team is working on that.
Mohamed,
It sounds as if what your client is actually suggesting is pretty much a move to reimbursable Terms.
Stand firm on the EOT time extension, thats yours, and your entitled.. particularly if the acceleration strategy was proposed by your Client. You need to make sure that, should the acceleration not achieve the contracted end date for whatever reason, you are covered to your full time entitlement.
As James suggested, intimating to a subbie that youll pay whatever it costs over and above the contract value is asking for trouble.. happily that is your Clients problem, not yours.
Mohamed
read the document youll find at www.eotprotocol.com this will clarify a lot of things for you I think.
If the client pays for accelleration and this means that the extension costs for the original EOT are mitigated, then your client is correct, they can be deducted. The EOT itself should stand though (thus protecting you from liability if the accelleration measures are less effective than planned)
The EOT in itself only indemnifies you from penalties by extending the contract completion date. The costs claimable should only reflect your actual costs (acting reasonably) plus reasonable profit. As for the cost of accelleration specifically, that you need to demonstrate, but your list of causes seems reasonable to me and should be demonstrable. I dont really understand tyour clients suggestion, unless they are suggesting some sort of cost+ approach, which might be possible, but is a terrible way to motivate a contractor, in my experience.
In the end you need someone to look at this claim on your behalf. Either a claims QS within your organisation or someone from outside. Im sure the situation is complex and so its impossible to offer a concise and complete answer to you in a forum post but if your client accepts the need for EOT and their culpability for costs then 80% of the battle is won.