Engineers review period clause no?
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
I agreed with Samer. I only want to add by experience that reasonable times mus be able to correlate with project approved schedule as this will be the basis of time consider for the project.
Is of no use to keep 100 of drawings pending for two months if the section related to the works required two month completion.
Though reasonableness is subjective but ought to consider the project schedule.
Regards
Dear Ravi,
Clause 1.9 is refering to the "necessary drawings not issued" not to the review period.
You have to dig deeper into the meaning of the words "reasonable duration". The reasonable time for 1 drawing submitted alone is not the same as the time necessary for reviewing 100 drawings submitted at the same time. This is why this term is used. You have to use your judgement in this matter and the Contractor must send notices and reminders if this is causing delays to his progress.
With kind regards,
Samer
Thanks
Now that I know is FIDIC 1999, I will cross check
Regards
(FIDIC 1999 Edition)
Clause 1.9 is all about Delayed Drawings and Instructions
It doesnt specify any particular time-frame in days; however, it states there should be reasonable time for review/approval.
If such delay is on account of Contractors error in submittal, then contractor is not entitled for EOT.
Gents,
Ple which edition of FIDIC are you both refering to?
Cheers
Dear Santhosh,
The review period for submittal, drawings is not mentioned in FIDIC. The review period for the Program of Works is 21 days mentioned in clause (8/3).
The review period of the Contractors Claims is mentioned as 42 days in clause (20/1).
With best regards,
Samer